.5'.  X)?A 


International   Theological    Library 


THE    THEOLOGY 


OLD    TESTAMENT 


BY  THE  LATE 

A.    B.     DAVIDSON,    D.D.,    LL.D.,    Litt.D. 

PROI-ESSOR  OF  HEBREW  AND  OLD   TESTAMENT  EXEGESIS 
NEW  COLLEGE,   EDINBURGH 


EDITED  FROM  THE  AUTHOR'S  MANUSCRIPTS 

BY 

S.  D.  F.  SALMOND,  D.D.,  F.E.I.S. 

PfUMCU'AL  OF  TllK  UMITKO  FREE  CUURCII  COLLEOE,   ABERDSRH 


NEW  YORK: 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER'S  SONS 

1904 


Published  May,  1^04 


The  Rights  of  Translation  and  of  lle/prod.ndion  are  Reserved 


PREFACE. 


The  master  hand,  it  will  easily  be  seen,  has  not  put  this 
work  in  order  for  the  press.  The  subject  was  long  in 
Professor  Davidson's  mind.  He  gave  it  a  large  place  in 
his  College  Lectures.  He  was  constantly  engaged  in  writ- 
ing upon  it  and  in  recasting  what  he  had  written,  modify- 
ing his  statements  and  revising  his  conclusions.  He 
prepared  a  large  mass  of  matter,  but  he  did  not  survive 
to  throw  it  finally  into  shape  for  publication. 

It  has  been  a  difficult  and  anxious  task  to  deal  for  the 
best  with  the  abundant  material.  Dr.  Davidson's  manu- 
scripts bear  on  every  page  impressive  evidence  of  the 
immense  pains  he  took  with  things,  and  the  lofty  standard 
he  set  before  him  in  all  his  professional  duty.  Much  of 
the  matter  came  to  me  in  a  variety  of  editions, — four,  five, 
or  six  in  not  a  few  cases, — the  long  results  of  unceasing 
study  and  searching  probation  of  opinion.  It  has  been 
far  from  easy  to  decide  between  one  form  and  another,  all 
being  left  undated,  and  to  bring  the  different  parts  into 
proper  relation. 

I  have  not  thought  it  right  to  take  liberties  willi  my 
departed  friend's  work.  I  have  given  it  substantially  as  he 
left  it,  adding  only  an  occasional  note  wliere  that  seemed 
specially  appropriate  or  needful.  Nor  have  I  judged  it 
within  my  province  to  depart  from  his  ways  in  the  use  of 
Scripture   or   in    anything  else.     When   expounding  any 


yi  PREFACE 

Biblical  tmth  he  was  iu  the  habit  of  making  copions 
quotalious  from  the  sacred  text,  referring  to  tlie  same 
passages  again  and  again  as  they  oirered  themselves  in 
ditfeient  aspects  and  connexions.  He  did  this,  too,  with 
much  freedom,  using  sometimes  the  Authorised  Version 
and  sometimes  the  Eevised,  furnishing  sometimes  a  trans- 
lation of  his  own,  and  sometimes  giving  the  sense  rather 
than  the  terms.  His  methods  in  such  things  are  followed 
as  they  are  found  in  his  manuscripts. 

Had  Dr.  Davidson  been  spared  to  complete  his  work 
and  carry  it  through  the  press,  it  would  have  ])een  different, 
no  doubt,  in  some  respects  from  what  it  is.  It  would  have 
been  thrown  into  the  best  literary  form.  Its  statements  at 
some  points  would  have  been  more  condensed.  It  would 
have  had  less  of  that  element  of  iteration  of  which  he 
made  such  effective  use  in  his  class-room.  But  even 
without  the  last  touches  of  the  skilled  hand,  it  will  be 
seen  to  be  a  distinct  and  weighty  contrilnition  to  a  great 
subject.  Fine  thinking,  penetrating  exegesis,  spiritual 
vision,  a  rare  insight  into  the  nature  and  operation  of 
Revelation,  make  the  book  one  which  the  student  of  Old 
Testament  Scripture  will  greatly  value. 

One  thing  that  gave  Dr.  Davidson  much  concern  was 
the  question  of  the  plan  on  which  a  work  of  this  kind 
should  be  constructed.  His  object  was  to  bring  the  liistory 
and  the  ideas  into  living  relation,  to  trace  the  progress  of 
Old  Testament  faith  from  stage  to  stage,  and  to  exhibit 
the  course  along  which  it  advanced  from  its  beginnings  to 
the  comparative  fulness  which  it  obtained  at  the  end  of  the 
prophetic  period.  But  he  never  carried  out  the  scheme. 
He  had  an  increasing  distrust  of  ambitious  attempts  to  fix 
the  date  of  every  separate  piece  of  tlie  Hel^rew  literature, 
and  link  the  ideas  in  their  several  measures  of  immaturity 
and  maturity   with   the   writings    as    thus    arranged.      He 


PREFACE  vii 

became  more  and  more  convinced  that  there  was  no  solid 
basis  for  such  confident  chronological  dispositions  of  the 
writings  and  juxtapositions  of  the  beliefs.  In  his  judg- 
ment the  only  result  of  endeavours  of  this  kind  was  to  give 
an  entirely  fictitious  view  of  the  ideas,  in  tlieir  relative 
degrees  of  definiteness,  the  times  at  which  they  emerged  or 
came  to  certainty,  and  the  causes  that  worked  to  their 
origin  and  development.  The  most  that  we  had  scientific 
warrant  to  do,  in  view  of  the  materials  availal)le  for  the 
purpose,  was,  in  his  opinion,  to  take  the  history  in  large 
tracts  and  the  literature  in  a  few  broad  divisions,  and  study 
the  beliefs  and  the  deliverances  in  connexion  with  these. 

My  work  is  at  an  end.  During  its  course  the  mist 
has  been  often  in  my  eyes.  The  sense  of  loss  has  been 
revived.  A  voice  has  spoken  to  me  out  of  the  past.  A 
face  that  was  darkened  has  seemed  to  be  turned  upon  me 
again  with  its  old  light.  I  have  felt  how  long  art  is  and 
how  short  is  life. 

S.   D.   F.   SALMOND. 

Aberdeen,  April  2,  1904. 


CONTENTS. 


L  THE  SCIENCE  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT  THEOLOGY. 


PAas 


1.  The  Idea  of  Old  Testament  Theology            ...  1 

2.  Studies  preliminary  to  Old  Testament  Theology      .            .  4 

3.  Definitions  and  Characteristics  of  Old  Testament  Theology  6 

4.  The  Relation  of  Old  Testament  Ideas  to  the  Old  Testament 

History        .......  11 

5.  Divisions  of  the  Subject         .....  12 
G.  The  great  Historical  Periods  .....  15 

7.  General  Course  and  Drift  of  the  History       .  .  .22 

8.  Literary    and    Historical    Criticism    in    relation    to    Old 

Testament  Theology           .....  28 


II.  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD. 

1.  General  Character  of  the  Old  Testament  Conception  of  God        30 

2.  The  Idea  of  the  Divine  Name  .  .  .  .        3G 

3.  Particular  Names  of  God        .  .  .  .  .38 

4.  The  Name  Jehovah     .  •  .  .  .  .  .45 

5.  Jehovah  the  God  of  Israel      .....        58 

6.  The  historical  Occasion  of  the  Application  of  the  Name 

Jehovah      ......  67 


III.  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD— THE  DIVINE  NATURE. 

1.  The  Knowledj^e  of  God 

2.  Tlie  Essence  and  Attributes  of  God  . 

3.  The  Unity  of  God       .... 

4.  The  Doctrine  of   the   sole  Godhead  of  Jehovah 

Prophecy     .... 

5.  The  Personality  and  Spirituality  of  God 

ix 


, 

73 

82 

9G 

in   later 

. 

100 

,             , 

106 

K  CONTENTS 

IV.  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD— THE  SPIRIT. 

PAQK 

1.  The  Spirit  of  God        .  .  .  .  .  .115 

2.  The  Spirit  of  God  within  God  liiniself  .  .  .117 

3.  The  Activities  of  the  Spirit   .  .  .  .  .120 

4.  What  the  Spirit  is      .  .  .  .  .  .126 

V.  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD— THE  DIVINE  ATTRIBUTES. 

1.  The  Righteousness  of  God      .....       129 

2.  The  Holiness  of  God  ......       144 

3.  The  Natural  Attributes  .  .  .  .  .160 

4.  The  Redemptive  Attributes    .  .  .  .  .169 

5.  God's  Relations  to  Nature  and  to  Men  .  .  .174 


VI.  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  MAN. 

1.  Human  Nature  and  its  Constitution  .  .  .  .182 

2.  The  terms  '  Body '  and  '  Flesh '  .  .  .  .188 

3.  The  term 'Spirit'       ......       192 

4.  The  term  '  Soul '  .  .  .  .  .  .199 


VII.  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  MAN— SIN. 

1.  Sin — its  Nature  and  Extent  .....       203 

2.  The  Consciousness  of  Sin        .....       227 


VIII.  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION. 

1.  The  Covenant.  .  .  .  .  .  .235 

2.  Why  the  Covenant  with  Israel  and  not  another?      .             .  249 

3.  The  Terms  descriptive  of  the  Covenant  Relation      .             .  252 

4.  The  Second  Side  of  the  Covenant — The  People  a  righteous 

People         .......  259 

5.  Righteousness  in  the  People  .....  271 

6.  Righteousness,  Grace,  and  Faith        ....  278 

7.  Suffering  and  Imputation       .....  282 


IX.  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION— SUPRAHUMAN 
GOOD  AND  EVIL. 

1.  Angels  .  .  .  .  .  .  .289 

2.  The  Angel  of  the  Lord  .  .  .  .  .296 

3.  Satan  ........      300 


CONTENTS 


XI 


X. 


DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION- 
ATONEMENT. 


PRIESTHOOD  AND 


1.  The  Priest        .... 

2.  Sacrifice  .... 

3.  Atoneiiienl  and  Forgiveness  . 

4.  Atonement  by  Priest  and  High  Priest 

5.  The  term  '  Atone '       » 

6.  Ritual  Use  of  the  Term 

7.  The  Principle  of  Atonement  . 


I'AGK 

30G 
311 
315 
324 
327 
338 
352 


XI.  THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAST  THINGS- 
MESSIANIC  IDEA. 


1.  Distinctive  Contributions  to  the  Doctrine     . 

2.  The  Consummation  of  the  Kingdom 

3.  The  Day  of  the  Lord  .... 

4.  The  Day  of  the  Lord  in  Deutero-Isaiah 

5.  Redemptive  Righteousness  in  Deutero-I;-aiah 


THE 


356 
3C5 
374 

384 
395 


XII.  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAST  THINGS— IMMORTALITY. 


1.  Differences  in  Modes  of  Thought 

2.  Fellowship  with  God  the  Fundamental  Idea 

3.  Preliminary  Questions  as  to  Man's  Nature    . 

4.  Conception  of  Sheol    ..... 

5.  Conception  of  Death  ..... 

6.  Life  and  its  Issues       ..... 

7.  Problems  of  Righteousness  and  llieir  Solution 

8.  Ideas  of  an  After-Life  in  Psalms  xvii.,  xxxvii.,  xlix.,  Ixx 

9.  The  Idea  of  an  After-Life  in  Job 

10.  The  Hope  of  an  After-Life  in  relation  to  the  Ideas  of  Life 

and  Death  .  .  ... 

11.  The  Moral  Meaning  of  Death 

12.  Further  on  the  Reconciliation  between  the  Idea  of  Death 

and  the  Idea  of  Life  .  .  .  .  . 


402 
415 
417 
425 
432 
437 
453 
459 
4GG 

495 
511 

522 


Notes  of  Literature 

Index  of  Scripture  Passages 

Index  op  Matters 


533 

541 

548 


THE    THEOLOGY 


OF  THE 


OLD    TESTAMENT 


THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD 
TESTAMENT. 


/.   THE  SCIENCE  OE  OLD  TESTAMENT 
THEOLOGY. 

1.    The  Idea  of  Old  Testament  Theology. 

Old  Testainent  Theology  is  the  earlier  division  of  Biblical 
Theology.  We  speak  of  a  Natural  Theology,  a  Biblical,  a 
Systematic  Theology.  These  adjectives  attached  to  the  term 
Theology  indicate  the  source  of  our  theological  knowledge, 
or  the  orderly  form  into  which  the  knowledge  is  thrown. 
In  Natural  Theology  nature  is  the  source  of  our  know- 
ledge. In  Systematic  Theology,  while  Scripture  supplies 
the  knowledge,  some  mental  scheme,  logical  or  ])liilo- 
sophical,  is  made  the  mould  into  which  the  knowledge  is 
run,  so  that  it  comes  out  bearing  the  form  of  this  mould. 
In  Biblical  Theology  the  Bible  is  the  source  of  the  know- 
ledge, and  also  supplies  the  form  in  which  the  knowledge 
is  presented.  Biblical  Theology  is  the  knowledge  of  God's 
great  operation  in  introducing  His  kingdom  among  men, 
presented  to  our  view  exactly  as  it  lies  presented  in  tlic 
Bible.  Now  the  Bible  is  a  book  c<:>mposed  of  many  ])arts. 
the  composition  of  which  extended  over  considerably  more 
than  a  thousand  years.  And  the  operation  of  God  in 
bringing  in  His  kingdom  extends  even  over  a  laiger  space. 
But  in  the  Bible  we  have  writings  contemporary  with 
this  operation,  an<l  reflecting  it  for  more  tlian  a  thousand 
years,  and  writings  which  sketch  that  operation  in  l)rief 
I 


2      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OTJ)  TESTAMENT 

iiiid  in  its  piincipal  tuniing- points  during  the  ages  pre- 
ceding. This  at  once  suggests  to  us,  therefore,  when 
we  consider  tliat  God's  operation  extended  over  this  long 
period,  and  yet  that  it  took  end  at  last  in  the  coming 
of  His  Son,  that  two  characteristics  belong  to  it.  It  is 
historical,  and  it  is  progressive ;  it  covers  a  long  period, 
and  it  advances  from  less  to  more,  and  finally  culminates. 
And  the  Bible  keeps  pace,  so  to  speak,  with  tliis  operation, 
reflects  it,  and  gives  us  the  knowledge  of  it  in  this  form. 

In  its  fullest  sense  the  kingdom  of  God  was  only  intro- 
duced in  the  Coming  of  the  Son  of  God  into  the  world ;  and 
in  this  sense  all  that  went  before  might  seem  only  capable  of 
being  rogai'ded  as   preparation  for  tliis  kingdom,  or  at  most 
shadows  of  it.     And  this  is  the  view  which  has  often  been 
taken  of  what  is  called  the  Old  Testament  dispensation, 
namely,  that  it  is  a  designed  shadow  or  aduml)ration  of  the 
new.      But  this  is  not  the  view  which  it  takes  of  itself  ; 
the  consciousness  of  Israel  as  reflected  in  the  minds  of  its 
prophets  and  highest  men  was  that  it  was  the  kingdom  of 
God  already.     The  apparent  discrepancy  disappears  on  a 
little  consideration  of  what  the  kingdom  of  God  is.      It  is 
the  fellowshi])  of  men  with   God  and  with  one  another  in 
love.      In  a  perfect  sense  this  could  not  be  tiU  the  Coming 
of  the  Son  in  whom  this  fellowship  is  fully  realised.      And 
in  a  sense  all   tliat  went  before  was   preparation   for  the 
kingdom   rather   than   the  kingdom   itself.      But   how  was 
the    perfect   kingdom    pre])ared  for?     Not   by   mere  pre- 
dictions of  it  and  references  to  it  as  a  thing  to  come,  nor 
by  setting  up  a  thing  which  was  a  shadow  of  it;  but  'oy 
setting  itself  up  in  as  perfect  a  form  as  was  possible   to 
begin   with,  awakening  within   men   both   a  sense  of  dis- 
satisfaction with   its  imperfections  then,  and  lofty  ideals  of 
what   its  true   condition   would   be,  and  thus  kindling   in 
them  an  enthusiasm  which   made  thorn  not  only  long  for 
the  perfect  kingdom,  but  struggle  for  its  attainment.      For 
as  the  kingdom  of  God  in  its  perfect  form  does  not  lie  in 
mere  knowledge,  but  rather  in  the  life  which   the  know- 
ledge  awakens,  so   it  could  not  be  prepared  for  by  the 


THE   IDEA    OF    OLD    TESTAMENT   THEOLOGY  3 

mere  knowledge  that  it  was  approacliiiig,  nor  oven  Ity  tlie 
knowledge  ontwardly  communicated  of  wliat  it  was.  It 
could  be  prepared  for  only  by  bringing  in,  jmd  tliat  in 
ever  fuller  tides,  the  life  of  which  it  consists.  [Xliat  life  no 
doubt  depended  on  the  knowledge  of  wliat  the  kingdom 
truly  was ;  but  this  knowledge  could  be  learned  by  men 
only  by  living  within  the  kingdom  itself.^ 

Thus  the  perfect  kingdom  w^as  gradually  prepared  for  by 
setting  up  such  a  kingdom  in  an  imperfect  state  and  under 
temporary  forms,  and  by  administering  it  in  such  a  way  as 
progressively  to  suggest  to  men's  minds  the  true  ideal  of  the 
kingdom,  and  communicate  to  them  in  broader  streams  the 
true  Ufe  in  such  a  kingdom.  And  each  step  of  this  com- 
munication was  a  more  perfect  bringing  in  of  the  kingdom 
itself,  an  advance  towards  its  perfect  form.  Thus  a  life  and 
a  thought  were  awakened  within  this  kingdom  of  God  set  up 
in  Israel,  which  grew  and  expanded  till  tliey  finally  burst 
and  threw  off  from  them  the  imperfect  outward  form  of 
the  kingdom  in  which  they  were  enclosed.  Now  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  exhibit  to  us  the  growth  of  this  life ' 
and  this  thouoht.  We  can  observe  the  stream  of  life  and 
ideas  flowing  from  the  Exodus  at  least,  or  even  from  a 
source  higher  up,  ever  broadening  as  it  proceeds,  and  finally 
pouring  itself  into  the  sea  of  life  and  thought  in  the  New 
Testament  age.  We  can  fathom  this  stream  here  and  there 
along  its  course,  mark  the  velocity  and  breadth  of  its  cur- 
rent, observe  the  changing  colour  of  its  waters  as  it  pursues 
its  way  through  region  after  region  of  the  people's  history, 
and  perceive  what  subsidiary  streams  poured  their  contents 
into  it  and  helped  to  swell  it.  To  do  this  and  present  tlie 
results  to  ourselves  is  to  be  Old  Testament  theologians. 

What  we  shall  have  to  look  for  is  a  point  of  \'iew  ; 
and  that  point  of  view  will  be  this,  tliat  in  the  Old 
Testament  we  have  presented  to  us  an  actual  liistorical 
religious  life, — men  filled  with  the  profoundest  thoughts  of 
God,  and  living  to  (Jod  a  most  close  personal  life,  and, 
having  such  thoughts  of  God  and  such  experiences  of  life 
to    Him,    importunate    in    their   desires  and   attempts   to 


4  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

itwakeii  ill  those  around  thcni  tlie  same  thouglits  aDd  the 
same  life.  This  is  the  strange  scene,  full  of  the  intensest 
reality,  which  the  Old  Testament  exiiihits  to  us, — a  scene 
continued  down  through  a  long  historical  pcri(xl,  changing 
in  some  ways,  ])ut  always  presenting  the  same  main  feature 
— namely,  tliat  of  a  hody  of  profoundly  religious  men 
speaking  the  truth  to  tlieir  countrymen,  and  seeking  to 
turn  tliem  to  God.  Thus  we  do  not  go  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment with  any  general  conception  tluit  ii  is  tlie  word  of 
God  spoken  to  us.  We  do  not  go  to  it  with  tliis  concep- 
tion, hut  we  rise  from  it  with  this  conception.  This  is  the 
thing  which  will  be  made  plain  to  us, — the  personal  religion 
of  all  the  writers  of  Scripture,  their  life  to  God  and  with 
God.  This  becomes  plainer  the  lower  down  w^e  come, — in 
the  Psalter,  for  example,  and  in  such  books  as  Job.  In 
the  period  aftei*  the  Exile  we  shall  find  problems  raised  by 
the  conditions  of  life, — problems  touching  God's  rule  of  the 
world.  His  relation  to  Israel,  the  people  who  knew  Him,  and 
were  the  representatives  of  His  cause  in  the  world  ;  problems, 
too,  of  His  relations  to  the  godly  in  an  ungodly  generation. 
To  the  intellect  these  questions  might  be  insoluble.  But 
we  shall  see  something  that  enabled  men  to  live  without  a 
solution.  This  was  their  religion,  their  conscious  fellowship 
with  God.  We  shall  find  that  more  and  more  religi(Uis 
certainty  was  based  on  this  consciousness.  It  was  the 
only  thing  the  pious  mind  possessed,  but  it  was  at  last 
always  found  enougli.  "  Nevertheless,"-  said  the  Psalmist, 
tried  by  misfortune  and  intellectually  paralysed  before  the 
riddles  of  providence, — "  nevertheless,  I  am  continually 
with  thee"  (Ps.  Ixxiii.  23).  Tlie  consciousness  of  God 
becomes  the  other  side  of  self  consciousness,  and  tliis  in- 
ward assurance  will  be  seen  to  be  strong  ciioug]i  to  face 
all  the  difficulties  raised  by  what  is  external. 

2.  Studies  preliminary  to  Old  Testament  TJieology. 

This  conception  of  what  Old  Testament  Theology  is  at 
once  suggests  that  certain  studies  must  precede  it.      if  it 


PRELIMINARY    STUDIES  5 

be  the  presentation  to  ourselves  of  tlie  j^radua.l  advance  (»!' 
the  kingdom  of  God  as  exhil)ited  to  us  in  the  successive 
books  of  Scripture,  it  is  necessary  that  we  sliouhl  see  how 
these  books  follow  one  another,  and  know  the  a,u;e  to 
which  they  belong,  and  of  which  they  rellect  the  life  and 
the  thought.  Criticism  or  Introduction  must  precede  any 
attempt  at  a  scientific  Old  Testament  Tlieology.  And 
this  fact  is  what  legitimates  Criticism  and  gives  it  a  place 
as  a  handmaid  to  Theology.  As  a  mere  literary  science 
whose  object  was  to  settle  the  ages  of  the  various  literary 
components  of  the  Bible,  and  describe  their  characteristics, 
and  indicate  their  connections  with  the  history  of  the  People 
of  Israel  regarded  as  any  other  ancient  people,  Criticism 
would  have  no  proper  place  among  our  theological  disci- 
plines. But  when  it  is  not  pursued  simply  for  its  own 
sake,  so  to  speak,  but  is  used  as  an  instrument  for  disposing 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  in  their  proper  place  so 
that  we  may  correctly  perceive  how  ideas  arose  and  followed 
one  another  in  Old  Testament  times,  and  may  observe  how 
history  reacted  upon  the  thought  and  life  of  the  people, 
then  Criticism  has  a  very  important  place  to  fill. 

Obviously,  too,  Old  Testament  Theology  must  be  pre- 
ceded by  scientific  exegesis  of  the  literature  in  its  length 
and  breadth.  AYe  cannot  create  a  trustworthy  theolog}' 
of  the  Old  Testament  by  merely  picking  out  a  text  here 
and  there  in  an  Old  Testament  book.  We  must  know 
the  whole  scope  of  the  book.  Individual  passages  always 
derive  their  meaning  from  the  context.  Torn  from  their 
surroundings  their  mere  language  might  suggest  to  us 
much  more  or  sometimes  perhaps  much  less  than  they 
really  mean.  Such  passages  have  usually  some  Ijcaring 
on  the  circumstances  of  the  author's  time.  Tliis  bearing 
often  greatly  modifies  their  meaning,  and  it  is  seldom  that 
we  can  really  discover  the  true  sense  of  any  single  passage 
in  a  book  unless  we  have  made  a  study  of  the  whole  book 
and  learned  to  estimate  tlie  autlior's  general  modes  of 
thinking,  the  broad  drift  of  his  ideas,  and  discovered  to 
what    matters    in    the    history   of    his    people   and    what 


6  THE   THEOLOGY    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

coiulitioii  of  their  minds  it  is  that  he  is  directing  his  wliolc 
work.  Such  studies  of  whole  books  are  useful  and  almost 
necessary  preliminaries  to  Old  Testament  Theology.  Sucli 
studies,  exhibiting  what  the  Germans  call  the  Lchrbcgriff, 
the  general  drift  of  the  teaching  of  a  book,  have  not  been 
uncommon  in  connection  with  the  New  Testament.  They 
liave  been  less  attended  to  with  regard  to  the  Old 
Testament. 


3.  Definitions  and  Characteristics  of  Old  Testament  Theology. 

Old  Testament  Theology  has  been  defined  to  be  the 
liistorical  and  genetic  presentation  of  the  religion  of  the 
Old  Testament ;  or  as  others  express  it,  it  is  that  branch 
of  theological  science  which  has  for  its  function  to  present 
the  religion  of  Eevelation  in  the  ages  of  its  progressive 
movement.  These  definitions  do  not  differ  from  the  one 
already  suggested,  namely,  that  it  is  the  presentation  of 
the  great  operation  of  God  in  bringing  in  the  kingdom  of 
God,  so  far  as  that  operation  was  carried  on  in  the  Old 
Testament  period.  The  one  definition  speaks  of  the 
religion  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  otlier  of  God's 
operation  in  bringing  in  His  kingdom.  But  these  two 
things  are  in  the  main  tlie  same.  The  kingdom  of  God 
is  within  us.  To  bring  in  the  kingdom  was  to  awaken  a 
certain  religious  life  in  His  people,  and  to  project  great 
thoughts  and  hopes  before  their  minds.  This  life  and 
these  thoughts  are  reflected  to  us  in  the  Old  Testament 
Scriptures.  These  various  definitions  all  imply  the  same 
distinct  characteristics. 

They  all  imply,  e.g.,  that  Old  Testament  Theology  is  a 
historical  science.  It  is  historical  in  the  same  sense  as  that 
in  whicli  the  Old  Testament  is  historical,  i.e.  in  the  sense  tliat 
its  parts  follow  one  another  down  through  a  long  period  of 
time.  We  can  readily  perceive  reasons  sufficient  to  explain 
the  gradual  and  historical  inl)ringing  of  tlie  kingdom  of  God. 
For  instance,  one  of  the  first  necessities  to  one  who  will 
take  his  place  in  the  kingdom  of  God  is  that  God  should 


DEFINITIONS    OF    OLD   TESTAMENT    THEOLOGY  7 

be  kuowii  k)  liiiM,  at.  least  on  the  moral  side  of  >li8  being. 
But  God  could  not  make  His  moral  nature  known  by 
mere  statements  concei'ning  Himself  delivered  at  once. 
His  power  He  could  reveal  in  one  terrible  act,  but  the 
principles  lying  behind  His  power,  and  governing  the 
exercise  of  it, — His  justice,  His  goodness,  His  grace,  in  a 
word  His  moral  nature, — could  not  bo  shown  ex('C!])t  by  a 
prolonged  exhibition  of  Himself  in  relation  to  the  life  of 
men.  When  we  look  at  the  Divine  names  we  observe 
that  the  attribute  which  the  Shemitic  mind  earliest  laid 
hold  of  was  the  Divine  power.  The  Shemitic  people  were 
slower  to  learn  His  other  attributes,  especially  to  learn 
the  constancy  and  unchangeableness  of  these  attributes,  in 
other  words,  to  rise  to  the  conception  of  God  as  a  tran- 
scendent moral  Person.  They  could  be  taught  this  only 
by  observing  how  God  acted  in  their  history  witli  a  terrible 
consistency,  punishing  evil  with  an  inflexible  uniformity, 
and  making  righteousness  on  their  part  the  condition  of 
His  being  their  God  and  protecting  them.  When  we  read 
the  Prophets  we  perceive  that  they  considered  that  this 
was  the  chief  lesson  which  the  people's  history  was  fitted 
to  teach  them.  In  opposition  to  their  superficial  hopes, 
founded  on  Jehovah's  being  their  national  God,  and  their 
expectation  that  they  could  at  any  time  secure  His  favour 
by  making  their  burnt  sacrifices  fatter  and  more  abundant, 
these  prophets  insist  upon  the  ethical  uniformity  of  the 
Divine  Mind,  which  cannot  be  bribed  by  gifts,  but  demands 
rectitude  :  "  I  hate,  I  despise  your  feasts  ...  let  judgment 
roll  down  as  waters,  and  righteousness  as  a  mighty  stream  " 
(Amos  V.  21— 24,  E.V.).  This  lesson  in  regard  to  the  nature 
of  God  is  the  chief  lesson  which  the  prophets  draw  from 
the  history  of  the  people.  But  one  can  conceive  many 
other  uses  served  by  the  long  preliminary  history  of  Israel. 
Its  many  vicissitudes  threw  individuals  into  very  various 
circumstances,  often  trying,  sometimes  joyous,  and  thus  we 
have  those  beautiful  pictures  of  the  life  of  the  individual 
with  God  which  are  contained  in  the  I'ook  of  I'salms, 
almost  the  most  precious  heritage  which  tlie   Church  has 


8      THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

derived  iVoiii  Israel,  and   to   vvliieli  there  is  almost  nothing 
similar  in  the  New  Testament  period. 

These  delinitions  also  all  imply  that  the  presentation 
of  the  Old  Testament  religion  in  Old  Testament  Theology  is 
cfcnetic.  This  means  not  only  that  Old  Testament  Theology 
shows  us  the  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  in  genesi,  tliat 
is,  in  the  condition  of  actually  arising  or  originating,  but 
that  its  progress  was,  so  to  speak,  organic.  It  grew,  and 
that  not  by  mere  accretion  or  the  external  addition  of 
truth  to  truth.  The  succeeding  truth  rose  out  of  the 
former  truth.  This  was  due  to  the  fact  that  the  kingdom 
of  God  was  planted  into  the  life  of  a  people,  and  thus 
its  progress  was  inseparably  connected  with  the  progress 
and  destiny  of  the  nation  of  Israel.  We  cannot  get  a 
religious  progress  without  a  religious  subject  in  whose  mind 
we  observe  the  progress.  Now,  the  religious  subject  in  the 
Old  Testament  was  the  people  of  Israel — and  the  progress 
can  be  studied  in  the  mind  of  this  subject  as  influenced  by 
its  history.  Eevelation  of  truth  was  not,  so  to  speak, 
communicated  from  without ;  but  the  organs  of  revelation 
rose  within  the  people  in  the  persons  of  its  highest  re- 
presentatives, men  in  whom  its  life  beat  fullest  and  its 
aspirations  were  most  perfectly  embodied.  Thus  the  truths 
concerning  the  kingdom  of  God  which  they  w^ere  enabled, 
stage  after  stage,  to  reach,  had  a  connection  with  one 
another  parallel  to  the  connection  between  the  stages  of 
the  life  of  the  people.  The  truths  regarding  the  kingdom 
of  God  appearing  in  the  Old  Testament  are  all  given  in 
terms,  so  to  speak,  of  the  history,  institutions,  and  life  of  the 
people  of  Israel.  It  is  customary  to  regard  the  institutions  of 
Israel,  its  offices  and  ordinances,  as  all  prearranged  parallels 
to  the  things  of  the  Christian  Church,  shadows  and  adum- 
brations or  types,  as  they  are  called,  of  the  realities  of  the 
New  Testament  kingdom.  Now,  of  course,  it  must  be 
maintained  that  the  perfect  form  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
the  form  which  it  was  to  have  in  the  New  Testament,  was 
contemplated  from  tlie  beginning.  There  was  a  deter- 
minism impressed  on  the  Old  Testament  kingdom  toward 


CHARACTERISTICS    OF    OLD    TESTAMENT    THEOLOGY       9 

its  [)ert'cct  t'orm  ;  it  was  a  growtli,  an  oroanisni  of  wliicli 
we  see -tlic  ('()ini)lete  skituie  only  in  tlie  New  I'estanient 
kingdom.  lUit  we  must  not  regard  those  institutions  in 
Israel  as  only  liaving  tliis  use  of  foreshadowing  tlie  future. 
They  were  real  institutions  and  oiiices  tliere,  and  tlieir  re- 
ference to  the  future  was  probably,  in  many  instances,  not 
understood  or  even  surmised.  The  way  tliey  bore  reference 
to  the  future  in  the  minds  of  the  people  was  rather  tliis. 
The  highest  thinkers  among  the  people,  such  as  the  pro- 
phets, perceived  the  idea  lying  in  the  ollices  and  institu- 
tions, and  expressed  their  longing  and  certainty  tluit  the 
idea  would  be  yet  realised. 

Thus  it  was,  for  instance,  with  the  kingship.  Its 
idea  was  a  king  of  God's  kingdom,  a  representative  of 
God  sitting  on  the  throne  in  Jerusalem.  Such  an  idea 
of  the  kingship  led  to  the  most  brilliant  idealising  of  tlie 
king  and  his  office.  Being  king  for  God  and  in  God's  king- 
dom, he  had  attribute  after  attribute  assigned  to  him,  all 
reflections  of  the  Divine  attributes,  till  at  length  he  was  even 
styled  the  'mighty  God,'  he  in  whom  God  Himself  would 
be  wholly  present.  And  not  only  the  kingship,  but  other 
offices  and  other  characters  appearing  among  the  i)eoi)le 
were  idealised ;  and  as  it  by  and  by  came  to  be  felt  that 
such  ideals  could  not  be  realised  in  the  present,  the  realisa- 
tion of  them  was  thrown  into  the  future.  One  of  the 
most  remarkable  of  these  ideals  is  the  Suffering  Servant  of 
the  Lord,  which  is  rather  a  personification  of  the  sulTering 
people  idealised.  But,  in  general,  everything  significant  in 
the  people's  history  and  life  was,  as  it  were,  abstracted 
from  its  relations  in  the  present ;  it  was  held  up  and 
magnified  by  a  process  of  moral  idealisation — and  the 
realisation  of  it  thrown  into  the  future.  Thus  the  people's 
minds  were  directed  to  the  future,  not,  as  is  often  thought, 
because  they  understood  beforehand  or  ever  were  taught 
that  their  institutions  were  all  predetermined  shadows  of 
a  reality  to  come,  but  because  they  ])erceived  that  the 
ideals  which  their  institutions  suggested  to  them,  and  which 
their  history   and   experience  had   called    up   before    theii- 


10  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

mind,  were  ideals  that  eoiild  not  be  realised  in  the  present, 
in  the  conditions  of  the  people  and  the  world  that  then 
existed,  nor  even  under  those  institutions  which  had  been 
the  very  means  of  suggesting  the  ideals  to  their  minds. 

But,  again,  these  defiiutions  all  imply  that  Old  Testa- 
ment Theology  is  a  development.  It  is  not  a  thing  com- 
plete, it  is  but  the  earlier  part  of  Biblical  Theology,  and  is 
completed  in  New  Testament  Theology.  Still,  Biblical 
Eevelation  being  an  organism.  Old  Testament  Theology 
is  not  a  torso.  It  is  a  growth  which,  though  it  has  not 
attained  perfection,  has  attained  a  certain  proper  develop- 
ment. All  its  parts  are  there,  though  none  of  it  is  yet 
in  full  stature.  There  is  perhaps  no  truth  in  the  New 
Testament  which  does  not  lie  in  germ  in  the  Old ;  and 
conversely,  there  is  perhaps  no  truth  in  the  Old  Testament, 
which  has  not  been  expanded  and  had  new  meaning  put  into 
it  in  the  New.  The  Old  Testament  contains  the  same  truths 
as  the  New  Testament,  but  in  a  less  developed  form,  and 
we  must  avoid  two  errors  which  are  not  uncoiimion.  The 
one  is  the  mistake  of  separating  the  Old  Testament  from 
the  New  in  such  a  way  as  leaves  us  with  no  authoritative 
truth"  in  the  Old.  The  other  is  to  confuse  the  New  and 
the  Old  so  that  we  shall  fiud  the  Old  equally  advanced 
with  the  New.  The  difference  between  the  New  and  the 
Old  is  not  that  the  same  truths  are  not  found  in  both,  but 
that  in  the  one  the  truths  are  found  in  a  less  degree  of 
development  than  in  tlie  other.  The  Old  Testament  is 
as  good  authority  for  a  truth  as  the  New ;  only  we  must 
not  go  beyond  tlie  degree  which  the  truth  has  yet  reached 
in  the  Old  Testament. 

This  fact,  however,  that  the  progress  of  the  kingdom 
was  organic  and  at  last  culminated,  suggests  that  the 
Old  Testament  should  be  read  l)y  us  always  in  the  light 
of  the  end,  and  that  in  framing  an  Old  Testament  TJieology 
we  sliould  have  the  New  Testament  completion  of  it  in 
our  view.  What  we  shall  be  engaged  in  is  mainly  dis- 
coverincr  the  thouiilits  and  estiniatiuf?  the  life  of  tlie  Old 
Testament  people  in  its  various  stages.      But  it  is  obvious 


THE    IDEAS    AND    THE    HISTORY  1  1 

(hat  at  no  time  was  tlie  consciousness  of  the  Old  Testanienl 
(Jhiuch  able  to  take  in  tlie  wliole  meaning  of  tlie  develoi)- 
nient  in  tlie  midst  of  wliicli  it  stood.  It  must  be  our 
first  object  to  discover  what  views  the  prophets  and  other 
Old  Testament  writers  had,  to  present  tlieni  to  ourselves, 
and  to  take  care  not  to  impose  New  Testament  conce])tion^ 
upon  them.  Still,  it  will  be  of  interest  to  ourselves  to 
compare  the  two  together,  and  to  see  how  far  the  Old 
Testament  Church  had  been  able  to  realise  to  itself  the 
point  towards  which  the  development  was  moving ;  and, 
knowing  this  goal,  we  shall  be  in  a  better  position  to 
estimate  the  meaning  of  the  Old  Testament  from  the  light 
in  which  it  is  thus  set  for  us. 

4.  The  Belation  of  Old  Testament  Ideas  to  the  Old 
Testament  History. 

If  the  view  which  we  have  taken  of  our  subject, 
then,  is  correct,  it  will  appear  that,  though  we  speak  of 
Old  Testament  Theology,  all  that  we  can  attempt  is  to 
present  the  religion  or  religious  ideas  of  the  Old  Testament. 
As  held  in  the  minds  of  the  Hebrew  people,  and  as  exhibited 
in  their  Scriptures,  these  ideas  form  as  yet  no  Theology. 
There  is  no  system  in  them  of  any  kind.  They  are  all 
practical  religious  beliefs,  and  are  considered  of  importance 
only  as  they  influence  conduct.  We  do  not  find  a  theology  • 
in  the  Old  Testament ;  we  find  a  relvfion — religious  con- 
ceptions and  religious  hopes  and  aspirations.  It  is  we 
ourselves  that  create  the  theology  when  we  give  to  these 
religious  ideas  and  convictions  a  systematic  or  orderly 
form.  Hence  our  subject  really  is  the  History  of  the 
Eeligion  of  Israel  as  represented  in  the  Old  Testament. 
We  have  seen,  too,  that  the  presentation  or  exhibition 
of  the  relif^ious  ideas  is  to  be  historical.  This  is  the 
systematic  form  under  which  the  religious  ideas  are  i)re- 
sented,  and  which  the  Old  Testament  itself  supplies.  The 
historical  character  of  the  Old  Testament  leligion  is  (»ne 
of   its   chief   characteristics,    that   is,  its   continuance   and 


12  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLi:>    TESTAMENT 


giowlli  (liiriiii;-  a.  Inii;.;-  ]t('ri(i(l  of  history.  And,  i'urtlicr,  we 
liavf  seen  ih.it  the  incsciitatitni  is  oii^anic.  This,  indeed, 
is  contained  in  tlie  fact  tliat  it  is  historical.  The  history 
of  any  individnal  consciousness  must  be  organic,  wliether 
the  mind  lie  tliat  of  a  nation  or  tliat  of  a  persom  Our 
successive  ex])eriences  and  tlie  pliases  of  mind  which  we 
go  througli  (hiring  a  lifetime  are  not  isolated  occurrences. 
Tiiey  rise  each  out  of  tlie  otlier.  They  are  connected  with 
our  external  history  ;  many  times  they  are  due  to  it.  But 
even  our  external  history  lias  a  unity  and  an  organic  char- 
acter in  it.  And  this  is  no  doul)t  truer  of  a  nation,  or  at 
least  its  truth  may  be  more  distinctly  perceived  in  national 
life.  When,  therefore,  it  is  said  that  tlie  Old  Testament 
religion  is  to  be  presented  organically,  it  is  meant  that  each 
step  of  progress  was  inLimately  connected  with  the  people's 
history — with  their  experiences.  Eevelations  of  this  truth 
or  that  were  not  made  sporadically,  but  were  given  in  con- 
tinuous connection  with  the  national  life  and  experience, 
and  so  the  truths  are  interlinked  with  one  another  in  the 
same  way  as  the  successive  stages  of  evolution  in  the 
national  history  are.^ 

5.  Divisions  of  the  Suhjcct 

Now,  the  question  arises,  What  divisions  of  the  subject 
shall  we  adopt  ?  If  we  employed  the  ordinary  threefold 
division, — Theology,    Anthropology,   and    Soteriology, — we 

^  "From  an  evolutionist  point  of  view,  men  si)eak  of  the  development  of 
the  religion  of  Israel.  From  a  dilferent  point  of  view,  the  history  of  Israel's 
religion  is  ealled  a  i»rogressive  revelation.  We  must  remember  that  a  pro- 
gressive revelation  from  tlie  Divine  side  nnist  exhibit  itself  among  men  as  a 
jiersistent  struggle  to  realise  new  truths.  ICvery  new  thought  of  God  is  first 
understood  in  a  soul  which  has  been  made  receptive  for  it ;  and,  once 
grasped,  it  maintains  itself  in  him  who  is  illumined  by  it,  as  well  as  in 
those  arountl  liim,  only  by  conflict.  This  conflict  appears  to  one  man  as  a 
progressive  development ;  to  another,  who,  by  experience,  has  learned  to 
know  the  gulf  between  God  and  the  human  heart  as  a  terrible  reality,  it 
ai)pears  as  a  progressive  revelation.  But,  however  it  be  regarded,  all  are 
agreed  that  from  the  Tora  and  Nebiim  [Law  and  Pro[>hets]  we  can  understand 
how  the  priM'ious  treasure  of  Israel's  religion  came  more  and  more  fully  to 
light,  and  maintained  itself  ever  more  finnly  "  (WUdeboer,  Canon,  p.  162). 


DIVISIONS    OF    OLD    TESTAMENT    THEOLOGY  13 

should  liavc  to  take  cacli  of  tlu^se  sultjccls  ;iii(l  trace  it 
di>\vii,  stop  by  ato]>,  tlirou<i;li  tlio  whole  Icii^^tli  of  tlic  nation's 
history,  marking  the  points  at  which  the  curi'ent  of  thought 
on  the  subject  received  new  additions  or  a  new  momentum. 
Perhaps,  liowever,  the  easier  way  would  1)0  to  divide  tlu^ 
liistory  into  periods,  to  cut  it  into  zones,  as  it  wore,  and 
examine  in  each  of  these  zones  the  whole  religious  thought 
of  the  people  during  the  period,  as  it  is  reliocted  in  the 
literature  of  that  period.  This  method  preserves  better 
the  historical  character  of  the  study,  and  this  is  the 
method  usually  adopted  by  writers  on  the  subject  of 
Old  Testament  Theology.  In  point  of  fact,  the  three- 
fold theological  division  —  Theology,  or  doctrine  of  God ; 
Anthropology,  or  doctrine  of  man ;  and  Soteriology,  or  doc- 
trine of  salvation — is  somewhat  too  abstract  for  a  subject 
like  ours.  What  we  meet  with  in  the  Old  Testament  are 
two  concrete  subjects  and  their  relation.  The  two  are : 
Jehovah,  God  of  Israel,  on  the  one  hand,  and  Israel,  the 
people  of  Jehovah,  on  the  other;  and  the  third  point, 
which  is  given  in  the  other  two,  is  their  relation  to  one 
another.  And  it  is  obvious  that  the  dominating  or  creative 
factor  in  the  relation  is  Jehovah.  The  Old  Testament 
contains  almost  exclusively  a  theology  (\6yo<i  irepl  Seov)  or 
doctrine  of  Jehovah  the  God  of  Israel.  It  is  to  be  observed, 
too,  that  what  we  have  to  do  with  is  not  a  doctrine  of  God, 
but  a  doctrine  of  Jehovah,  IsraeVf^  God.  We  have  reached 
now  such  a  stage  of  thinking  on  the  Divine  that,  while  some 
may  doubt  whether  there  be  a  God  at  all,  nobody  supposes 
that  there  is  more  than  one.  But  this  point  is  just  one 
that  has  to  be  in([uired  into  regarding  Jehovah — how  far 
Israel's  God  was  believed  to  be  God  alone.  At  all  events, 
as  I  have  said,  He  was  the  normative  factor  in  the  relation. 
He  moulded  the  i)eople,  and  the  mould  into  which  He  cast 
them  was  that  of  His  own  nature.  The  conceptions  of  the 
people  regarding  Jehovah  immediately  reacted  on  the  peo})le 
and  created  corresponding  conceptions  regarding  themselves. 
The  people  must  l)e  what  their  God,  Jehovah,  was. 

Now,   thoughts   of    Jehovah   or    revelations   regarding 


1  4  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

Him, — fur  tlio  two  things  are  tlie  same,  seeing  that  a 
revelation  is  no  revelation  until  it  takes  the  shape  of 
liiiman  thought,- —might  run  on  two  chief  lines.  One 
would  he  ethicMl  or  spiritual  conceptions  of  Jehovah — 
conceptions  which  immediately  reacted  on  the  people  and 
made  tliem  feel  that  the  same  ethical  character  was  de- 
manded from  them,  if  they  were  to  he  His  people.  And 
a  second  would  be  thoughts  of  how  Jehovah  was  to  be 
served  in  acts  of  worship — in  other  words,  thoughts  re- 
giudiiig  tiie  sacred  ritual.  Now,  these  are  the  two  lines 
on  whicli  most  of  the  sacred  writings  of  the  people  run.  The 
first  line  of  conceptions,  the  ethical  or  spiritual,  whether  in 
regard  to  the  nature  of  Jehovah  or  the  conduct  of  His  people, 
was  chietly  developed  by  the  prophets.  The  line  of  ritual 
service  naturally  was  developed  mostly  by  th^  priests,  or  at 
least  by  men  who  were  more  practical  than  the~prophets. 
But  even  the  ritual  legislation  was  influenced  by  the  pro- 
l)hetic  teaching — it  was  often  an  embodiment  in  a  practical 
form  of  their  ideas.  This  second  line,  then,  is  that  of  the 
'^legislation,  for  all  the  legislation  relates  to  the  worship  or 
ritual  service  of  Jehovah — at  least  in  the  main.  These 
two  streams  of  thought  might  be  called  objective,  so  far 
as  the  body  of  the  people  was  concerned.  For,  thougli 
the  prophetic  thoughts  were,  of  course,  profoundly  sub- 
jective to  the  prophets  themselves,  that  is,  rose  up  out 
of  their  own  hearts  with  the  greatest  intensity  and  fire 
of  conviction,  yet  the  prophets  were  a  small  body  compared 
with  tlie  wliole  mass ;  they  were  tlie  organs  of  revelation  to 
the  general  body.  And  in  like  manner  the  legislation, 
wliidi  was  many  times  a  mere  practical  embodiment  of 
prophetic  teaching,  was  fornmlated  by  small  bodies  of 
priests,  and  was  imposed  upon  the  mass  by  authority. 

Besides  these  two  objective  streams  tliere  were  two 
others,  which  might  be  called  subjective.  One  of  these  was 
the  expression  of  personal  devotion,  or  the  spiritual  experi- 
ence and  exercise  of  the  individual  mind,  such  as  we  have 
in  the  Psalms.  Tliere  is  no  reason  at  all  to  suppose  that 
the  bulk  of  the  Bsalms  are  the  production  of  one  individual. 


THE    GRKAT    HISTORICAL    PERIODS  15 

They  are  the  expression  of  the  devotion,  and  many  tinies  of 
the  religious  couHicts  of  the  individual  mind,  througliout 
the  whole  of  the  people's  history,  particularly  during  its 
later  stages.  And,  secondly,  tlie  other  sul)j'ective  stream 
of  thoug]it  was  that  embodied  in  tlie  Wisdom.  This  is 
the  expression  of  the  religious  reflecting  mind,  as  the  other 
was  of  tlie  devotional  mind.  The  pious  emotions  responded 
to  the  prophetic  truth,  and  to  the  demands  of  the  law,  in 
words  that  run  through  the  whole  scale  of  religious  feel  in  <r. 
The  reflecting  mind  delighted  itself  by  observing  how  the 
great  ethical  truths  of  Jehovah's  nature  were  everywhere 
verifying  themselves  in  His  providence  in  the  world  and 
in  men's  lives.  Or  it  was  startled  at  a  later  time,  when 
even  the  godly  lay  under  grievous  calamities,  to  find  that 
the  prophetical  teaching  was  contradicted  by  events  of 
actual  providence.  This  gave  rise  to  doubts  and  question- 
ings, by  which  men  were  sometimes  almost  driven  to  despair. 
This  Wisdom  we  have  in  the  Proverbs,  many  of  the 
Psalms,  Job,  and  Ecclesiastes ;  and,  of  course,  to  all  these 
have  to  be  added  many  expressions  of  religious  faith  and 
many  examples  of  religious  conduct  in  the  historical  writings. 
Keeping,  then,  all  these  general  lines  of  thought  in 
view,  which  are  in  the  main  four, — prophecy,  or  religious 
politics  ;  legislation,  or  the  ritual  of  worship  ;  devotion,  and 
reflection, — we  have  the  literary  materials  which  we  have 
to  divide  into  periods,  so  as  to  exhibit  the  historical  growth 
of  the  conceptions  which  the  materials  embody.  Naturally, 
any  division  will  to  some  extent  break  in  upon  things 
closely  connected,  because  the  growth  of  thought  or  the 
stream  of  history  cannot  be  cut  into  sections.  For  it  is 
a  thing  continuous  and  uninterrupted.  But  with  this 
admission  the  following  division  marks  the  great  points  in 
the  literary  history  of  Israel. 

6.    The  great  Historical  Periods. 

(a)  A  'prdiminary  or  introductory  period  terminating  with 
the  Exodus. — The  Old  Testament  religion  hardly  begins  till 


16  THK    THEOLOGY    OF    THK    OLD    TKSTAiMENT 

I  lie  ExotluK.  Therefore  the  rehgious  suliject  iu  Old  Testa- 
ment times  witli  win  tin  Jehovah's  covenant  was  made  was 
the  people  Israel,  not  individual  Israelites,  and  tlie  people  was 
I  lie  creation  of  the  great  act  of  redemption  at  the  Exodus. 
This  period,  tlien,  would  lie  preliminary.  We  have  no  litera- 
lure  from  this  period  itself.  What  we  liave  is  the  'view  of 
tliis  period  taken  in  the  ninth  and  eiglith  centuries.  This 
view  contains  many  elements — particularly  two,  national 
traditions  of  early  human  history  not  peculiar  to  Israel,  but 
shared  in  by  most  Shemitic  nations ;  and,  seccmdly,  the 
penetration  and  nioditication  of  these  traditions  by  the 
princi]iles  of  the  religion  of  Jehovah — e.g.  in  the  narratives 
of  the  Creation,  the  Fall,  the  Flood,  etc.  So  the  patriarchal 
])eriod  is  the  period  of  tradition,  and  of  tradition  possibly 
religiously  coloured.  What  is  perhaps  most  imi)ortant  for 
us  is  this  religious  colouring,  rather  than  the  mere  details 
of  the  history. 

{h)  The  2^<^t^iocl  from  the  Exodus  to  written  ijrophccy, 
r>.c.  800. — The  beginning  of  written  prophecy  in  the 
deliverances  of  Amos  and  his  successors  is  a  point  of  such 
importance  that  it  is  natural  to  make  it  an  era.  Apart 
from  the  religious  truths  taught  by  the  canonical  prophets 
there  is  one  thim?  which  characterises  them  all  from  Amos 
downwards.  They  have  completely  broken  with  the  nation, 
whose  conditition  they  condemn  and  pronounce  to  be 
hopeless,  and  on  the  eve  of  destruction.  This  destruction 
is  in e vital )le,  Jehovah  their  God  being  what  He  is.  No 
doubt  earlier  propliets  express  the  same  judgment,  but  less 
universally.  Even  as  early  as  Solomon,  Ahijah  of  Shiloh 
liredicted  the  downfall  of  liis  kingdom  (1  Kings  xi.  31—39). 
And  Klijali's  attitude  was  the  same  towards  tlie  kingdom  of 
the  north.  l*er]ia])s  during  this  period  we  can  trace  only  two 
of  the  four  great  streams  of  thought  witli  much  certainty. 

1.  Of  Prophecy,  we  have  examples  in  Deborah,  Samuel, 
Elijah,  and  Elislia.  Excejjt  the  Song  of  Deborah,  there  is 
no  literary  ]>i()pliecy.  Under  ])roplie('y,  however,  according 
to  the  Jewisli  modes  of  classification,  fall  historical  writin'^s, 
c.(j.  Judges,  the  Books  of  Samuel. 


THE    GREAT    HISTORICAL    PERIODS  17 

2.  The  other  stream  is  that  of  Legislation.  Here  we 
can  put  with  certainty  the  so-called  Book  of  the  Covenant, 
Ex.  xx.-xxiii.  It  may  be  the  caee  that  more  should  he 
placed  here;  hut  tliis  is  disputed.  It  is  probable,  how- 
over,  that    there  were  both   Psalms  and   Proverbs   duriii"- 

o 

this  period — the  latter  certainly,  as,  e.g.,  in  the  fable  of 
Jotham.  But  it  is  difficult  to  identify  those  of  tliis  age. 
As  to  this  oldest  legislation,  however,  all  scholars  are 
agreed,  and  with  it  goes,  of  course,  a  g(X)d  deal  of  the 
liistory  in  Genesis,  Exodus,  Nund)ers,  and  Josliua.  It  is 
very  probable  that  laws  more  strictly  ritual  than  those  in 
the  code  Ex.  xx.-xxiii.  existed.  But  it  is  not  certain  that 
they  were  yet  reduced  to  writing,  being  merely  traditional 
among  the  priests.  If  written,  they  were  kept  within  the 
priestly  circles. 

(c)  From  800,  written  proijhccij,  to  b^(S,  the  Exile  of 
Judah. — 1.  Prophecy.  Tlie  stream  of  prophecy  beginning 
with  Amos  gradually  widens  out  to  be  a  broad  and  im- 
posing river.  The  great  prophets  whose  names  we  know 
belong  to  this  period — Amos,  Hosea,  Micah,  Isaiah,  and 
Jeremiah.  Perhaps  it  would  be  safest  to  close  the  period 
with  Jeremiah,  who  survived  the  Exile  only  a  very  short 
time,  and  to  carry  Ezekiel  into  the  next  period.  He 
survived  the  Exile  a  number  of  years,  and  for  other  reasons 
he  rather  belongs  to  the  post-Exile  sphere. 

2.  In  Legislation  we  have  belonging  to  this  period  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy.  This  may  be  said  apart  from  any 
tlieory  of  its  origin  or  even  its  date  of  composition.  It 
ought  to  be  placed  in  this  period  on  other  grounds.  It  was 
discovered  in  the  Temple  in  tlie  year  621.  Made  pul)lic 
in  this  year,  it  exercised  innnediately  a  powerful  iiiHuencc 
upon  the  worship,  and  also  upon  the  general  current  of 
the  people's  thouglits.  This  period  of  its  discovery  was 
tliat  when  its  teaching  really  became  a  factor  in  the  public 
life  and  the  religious  conceptions  of  the  nation.  It  became 
public  law,  and  powerfully  inlluenced  both  religious  practice 
and  religious  literature  from  this  date.  It  is  also  tlie 
general  impression  among  writers  on  the  Old  Testament 

3 


18    THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

that  Deuteronomy  follows  the  i^rcat  prophets  Amos,  Hosea, 
and  Isaiah,  and  reflects  in  its  spirit  tlieir  teacliing.  So  far 
as  its  legislative  contents  apart  from  its  spirit  are  con- 
cerned, they  are  an  expansion  of  Ex.  xx.— xxiii. 

(d)  From  the  Exile,  586,  ^o  400,  the  close  of  the  p'o- 
phctical  Canon. — This  might  be  called  the  period  of  the 
Restoration  and  Reconstruction  of  the  State.  It  deserves 
to  be  considered  a  distinct  period,  because  undoubtedly  new 
conceptions  and  a  new  way  of  reading  the  past  history  of 
the  nation  arose,  and  also  a  new  ideal  for  the  future.  The 
prophet  Ezekiel  belongs  to  this  period,  at  least  as  a  powerful 
influence,  though  in  point  of  fact  he  lived  mainly  during 
the  preceding  period. 

It  includes  :  1.  Prophecy — Ezekiel,  II  Isaiah,  Zechariah, 
Haggai,  Malachi.  2.  Legislation — the  Levitical  legislation 
of  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.      3.  The  Psalter.      4.  The  Wisdom. 

(1)  As  to  Prophecy.  The  second  half  of  Isaiah  is 
usually  placed  in  this  era.  Its  contents  refer  it  to  this 
period.  If  Isaiah  was  its  author,  he  was  enabled  to  project 
himself  in  spirit  into  the  Exile,  and  see  and  estimate  that 
period,  with  its  personages  and  forces,  precisely  as  if  he  had 
lived  during  it  in  the  body. 

(2)  The  Legislation  of  this  period  is  the  so-called  priestly 
or  Levitical  legislation,  contained  now  in  Ex.  xxv.— xL. 
Leviticus,  and  good  part  of  Numbers.  It  is  disputed, 
indeed,  whether  this  legislation  as  a  whole  belongs  to  this 
period.  And  it  may  be  allowed  to  be  probable  that  there 
were  written  ritual  laws  as  early  as  other  laws.  There 
were  customary  ritual  actions — a  ritual  praxis,  consuetu- 
dinary and  practised — embracing  the  various  kinds  of 
sacrifice,  though  the  numbers  of  victims,  etc.,  might  not  be 
fixed.  This  ritual  praxis  gradually  expanded,  and  became 
more  splendid,  more  refined,  more  expressive  in  details  of 
the  underlying  ideas.  We  see  it  in  great  grandeur  in  the 
time  of  Amos  and  Isaiah ;  it  was  about  complete  in 
the  time  of  Ezekiel.  It  is  not  at  all  probable  that  these 
ritual  laws  were  for  the  first  time  written  at  this  late 
period,    but    at    this    period    they    appear    to    have    been 


THE    PSALTER  19 

brought  together  and  codified,  and  no  doul)t  additions 
were  made  to  them  to  give  them  theoretical  completeness. 
They  are  probably  the  result  of  the  ritual  practice  throughout 
the  history  as  it  was  modified  and  improved.  It  appears 
to  me  tliat  the  Book  of  Ezekiel  shows  that  before  his  day 
the  ritual  was  almost  the  same  as  it  became  after  the 
Eestoration.  But  how  far  the  ritual  customs  had  been 
reduced  to  writing  before  this  period  is  difficult  to  ascertain. 
Being  largely  for  the  guidance  of  the  priests,  they  had  less 
public  importance. 

Apart,  however,  from  other  considerations,  there  are,  at 
any  rate,  these  two  reasons  for  placing  the  priestly  legislation 
here — first,  it  was  certainly  not  completed  or  codified  in 
the  form  in  which  we  have  it  till  this  period  ;  and,  secondly, 
what  is  more  important,  it  did  not  become  an  element  in 
the  national  life  till  this  era.  Whether  it  existed  before  or 
not,  it  was  not  obeyed,  the  nation  did  not  subject  themselves 
to  it.  From  the  year  444,  when  Ezra  and  Nehemiah  read 
the  Law  before  the  people,  it  is  certain  that  this  Levitical 
law,  as  a  ritual,  and  the  hierarchical  system  as  a  govern- 
ment, became  the  ritual  and  government  of  the  community. 
The  theocracy,  which  was,  so  to  speak,  ideal  before  (i.e. 
Jehovah  was  king),  now  became  hierarchical  :  the  theo- 
cracy was  a  government  by  priests ;  the  high  priest  was 
the  head  of  the  community. 

(3)  The  Psalter.  The  Psalter  must  be  placed  here  for 
various  reasons.  It  was  only  now  that  the  Psalms  were 
collected  together,  and  as  a  whole  made  the  medium  of  tlie 
devotional  service  in  the  temple.  Not  before  this  time  did 
tlie  Psalter  enter  into  the  people's  life  as  the  expression  of 
their  devotions,  and  as  a  powerful  infhience  upon  their  life. 
In  estimating  the  progress  of  religious  thouglit  and  de- 
votional life,  we  must  recognise  the  pui)lic  acce])tan(*e  of  the 
Psalter  as  the  expression  of  this  thought  and  life  to  be  one 
of  the  most  important  events  with  which  we  have  to  deal 
Alany  of  the  Psalms,  of  course,  may  l)e  ancient.  It  would 
be  as  untrue  to  say  that  the  Psalmody  of  Fsiael  took  its  rise 
with  the  Second  Temple,  as  to  say   that  the  Thames   rises 


20    THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

at  London  lU-idge.  But  though  tlie  Thames  rises  higher 
up,  it  begins  at  London  Bridge  to  bear  on  its  bosom  the 
commerce  and  the  industrial  life  of  tlie  nations ;  and  the 
Psalter,  too,  begins  with  the  Second  Temple  to  express  the 
religious  life,  not  of  individuals,  Itut  of  Israel.  And  the 
national  use  of  the  Psalter  shows  how  completely  all  the 
conflicts  which  tlie  prophets  had  to  wage  against  idolatry 
and  the  like,  had  been  fought  out  and  the  battle  won. 
The  providence  of  God  had  set  its  seal  on  the  prophetic 
teac*liing,  and  it  was  accepted  by  the  restored  nation. 

(4)  The  Wisdom.  The  Proverbial  literature  probably 
would  fall  largely  into  the  preceding  period.  But  some  of 
the  most  splendid  fruits  of  the  reliective  mind  of  Israel, 
such  as  the  Book  of  Job,  probably  belong  to  this  epoch. 
The  Wisdom  belongs  to  the  literature  of  the  individual's 
religious  life ;  Prophecy  and  Legislation  to  the  sphere  of 
the  national  life.  Consequently  the  Wisdom  literature  is 
mainly  late. 

{e)  From  400  to  the  Christian  era. — This  embraces: 
1.  Prophecy — Daniel;  2.  Wisdom — Ecclesiastes  ;  3.  His- 
tory— Chronicles.      This  is  the  period  of  the  Law. 

The  division  which  we  have  followed  gives  five  periods,  a 
preliminary  one,  and  four  others — From  Moses  to  prophecy, 
800  ;  from  800  to  586,  the  fall  of  Jerusalem;  from  586  to 
400 ;  and  from  400  to  our  era.  But  perhaps  the  whole  period 
from  the  Exodus  might  be  divided  into  three  characteristic 
stages — 1.  Pre-prophetic  period,  down  to  800  ;  2.  Pro- 
phetic period,  down  to  586  ;  and  3.  Levitism,  down  to  our 
era.  Of  course,  these  names  are  general.  Prophetism  is 
but  the  development  of  ^losaism  on  one  side ;  but  it  is  a 
distinct  development  and  a  literary  development.  Similarly, 
Levitism  is  a  development  of  Mosaism  on  another  side,  but 
it  is  no  doubt  an  expansion ;  and  historically  the  Levitical 
system  during  this  period  actually  made  itself  master  of 
the  people,  and  brought  them  into  subjection  to  it,  which 
historically  had  not  been  true  at  an  earlier  period. 

The  ])rophets,  l)eing  statesmen  in  the  kingdom  of 
God,  stand  in  closest  relation  to  the  history,  and  in  their 


THE    PROPHETIC    LITERATURE  21 

]wj;qs  the  siguificaiice  of  tho  various  iiiniuciita  and  tuniiii^ 
points  ill  the  national  career  can  l)est  be  estimated.  And 
it  is  their  teacliing  tliat  we  should  chiefly  have  before  us. 
From  850  or  800  to  400  B.C.  they  are  the  main  figures  in 
tlie  history  of  Israel  ;  and  unquestionably  the  prophetic 
literature  is  the  most  characteristic,  and  has  most  aflinities 
with  the  New  Testament.  We  are  al)le  to  receive  a  better 
general  idea  of  tlie  religion  of  the  Old  Testament  l)y  study- 
ing the  Prophets  than  by  reading  any  other  part  of  the 
Hel)rew  Scriptures.  The  literature  of  the  period  endilig 
with  800  or  750  B.C.  is  scanty,  being  chiefly  contained  in 
the  part  of  the  Pentateuch  called  J,  or  the  united,  elements 
JE.  It  is  ditlerent  with  the  prophetical  period,  800-586, 
which  is  the  most  important  for  an  Old  Testament  theo- 
logian, i.e.  for  one  who  wishes  to  understand  the  develop- 
ment of  Revelation  or  the  religion  of  Israel  historically — in 
other  words,  to  understand  the  faith  and  hopes  of  Israel  as 
they  existed  actually  in  the  minds  of  the  prophets  and  the 
people.  All  the  great  religious  conceptions  of  the  Old 
Testament  come  to  view  in  this  period.  An  exception 
might  be  made  in  regard  to  the  doctrine  of  immortality. 
But  there  are  two  doctrines  of  immortality  in  the  Old 
Testament — that  of  the  people,  the  kingdom  of  God ; 
and  that  of  the  individual  person.  The  former  is  fully 
developed  in  the  prophetic  age ;  that  of  the  individual, 
perhaps  not  until  the  period  of  Judaism.  For  the  prophetic 
teaching  is,  so  to  speak,  national ;  it  was  only  on  the  down- 
fall of  the  State  that  the  meaning  and  worth  of  the 
individual  life  began  to  be  adequately  felt,  and  consequently 
that  the  destinies  of  the  individual  began  to  be  earnestly 
pursued  and  reflected  upon.  But  very  much  of  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  immortality — c.ff.  the  concomitants 
of  it,  the  judgment ;  the  result  of  it,  eternal  peace  and 
fellowship  with  God,  and  the  like — is  taught  in  the.  Old 
Testament  in  connection  with  the  eschatology  of  the  king- 
dom or  people  of  God. 

But    if    the   prophetic   ])eriod   be    the   most   important 
period   for   the   Old   Testament   theologian,   the    period   ol" 


22  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

Judaism,  from  the  Eestoration  in  537  to  our  era,  is  of 
supreme  importance  for  the  Christian  tlieologian  or  exegete. 
]^ecause,  altliough  this  period  is  not  so  rich  in  original 
productions,  it  is  the  period  of  reflection  and  generalisation 
on  the  prophetic  teacliing,  and  of  appropriation  and  as- 
similation of  it  into  tlie  individual  life.  This  process  in 
great  measure  stripped  off  the  nationalism  from  the  pro- 
j)hetic  truths,  and  brought  them  under  individualism.  But 
individualism  is  universalism.  The  individual  is  of  no 
nation. 

But  this  way  of  looking  at  the  ancient  literature 
generalised  the  contents.  The  circumstances  in  which  a 
truth  was  uttered  ceased  to  be  of  importance,  while  the 
person  who  uttered  it  or  to  whom  it  was  uttered  was 
equally  unimportant.  All  those  things  ceased  to  have 
meaning.  The  things  that  had  meaning — and  had  universal 
applicability  —  were  the  ethical  and  religious  principles. 
These  were  the  Word  of  God.  So  that  in  a  sense  it  is 
true  that  the  better  historical  Old  Testament  theologians 
we  are,  the  worse  fitted  are  we  to  comprehend  the  New 
Testament  writers.  It  is  admitted  that  the  sense  put  by 
New  Testament  writers  on  much  of  the  Old  Testament 
which  they  quote  is  not  the  true  historical  sense,  i.e.  not 
the  sense  which  the  original  writers,  prophets,  or  wise  men 
had  in  their  mind.  The  sense  which  the  New  Testament 
writers  express  is  the  sense  which  arose  during  the  period 
of  Judaism — which  experience  and  reflection  and  personal 
piety  put  upon  the  Old  Testament.  Hence  is  it  that  to 
the  Christian  theologian  or  exegete  the  period  of  Judaism 
is  of  the  utmost  importance. 

7.   General  Course  and  Drift  of  the  History. 

The  literature  of  Israel,  then,  being  so  closely  connected 
with  its  history,  it  is  of  importance  to  understand  the  general 
course  and  drift  of  the  latter.  As  in  all  ancient  States, 
the  religion  was  national.  The  religious  unit  or  subject 
was  nut  the  individual  in  the  State,  but  the  ideal  unity 


GENERAL    DRIFT    OF    THE    HISTORY  2.'^ 

formed  by  the  State  as  a  wliole.  Now,  this  unity  oaiiip 
into  existence  at  tlio  Exoihis  from  Egy])t.  Kr<»iii  Mm  I 
hour  Israel  was  conscious  of  being  a  people,  and  rlcliovali, 
who  had  delivered  them,  was  their  God  alone :  "  1  am 
Jehovah  thy  God,  who  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt "  (Ex.  XX.  2  ;  cf.  Hos.  xiii.  4).  The  sense  of  being  a 
people,  and  the  sense  of  being  the  people  of  Jehovah,  if  not 
identical  feelings,  reacted  very  powerfully  on  one  auotlier ; 
and  hence  the  religious  literature  of  the  people  rellects 
from  age  to  age  all  the  changing  hues  of  its  history.  That 
history  ran  very  much  such  a  course  as  we  should  have 
expected. 

(1)  The  migration  of  the  ancestors  of  the  people  from 
the  East,  the  descent  into  Egypt,  the  oppression  and 
bondage  there,  and  the  delivery  under  Moses,  are  events 
testified  to  not  only  in  the  formal  history  of  tlje  Penta- 
teuch, but  by  frequent  incidental  allusions  in  other  writing. 
These  allusions  express  the  fundamental  historical  feeling 
of  the  people,  the  very  basis  of  their  national  and 
religious  consciousness  (Amos  ii.  9  seq. ;  Hos.  xii.  13; 
Mic.  vi.  4). 

(2)  Disintegration  under  the  Judges.  It  was  natural 
that  the  unity  into  which  the  tribes  ^  had  been  welded  at 
the  Exodus  by  the  necessity  of  facing  a  common  danger,  or 
sharing  a  common  enterprise,  should  become  relaxed  wlien 
the  danger  was  over  and  the  enterprise  had  in  great 
measure  succeeded ;  and,  accordingly,  after  the  settlement 
in  Canaan,  we  find  the  unity  in  some  degree  disintegrated, 
and  the  various  tribes  fighting  each  for  its  own  hand,  and 
only  entering  into  combinations  when  some  danger  more 
serious  than  usual  threatened.  Such  is  the  hist(jry  as 
reflected  in  the  Book  of  Judges.  No  doul)t  a  religious 
disintegration  in  some  measure  ran  parallel  to  tlie  political 
one.      Even    in    tliis    troubled   period,    however,    altliough 

^  Tlie  tribes  entered  Canaan,  or  at  least  conquered  a  place  in  it,  not  in 
common,  but  independently,  or  in  smaller  combinations.  Tlure  were  two 
Canaanite  belts— between  Judali  and  the  northern  tribes^  and  between  tlie 
northern  tribes  themselves,  i,e.  the  plain  of  Jezreel. 


24  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

practically  the  tribes  arc  often  seen  acting  independently, 
and  settling  with  a  stroii";  liand  tlicir  own  l(»ca,l  dilTerences 
with  the  native  population,  the  sense  of  tlie  ideal  unity  of 
all  the  tril)es  as  one  'Israel'  inspired  the  higher  minds  in 
the  nation,  as,  e.g.,  the  prophetess  Deborah  (Judg.  v.  2,  3, 
5,  7,  9,  etc.) ;  and  the  need  of  some  single  head,  such  as  a 
king,  to  represent  this  unity  is  often  felt  and  expressed  by 
the  people  (Judg.  viii.  22). 

(3)  The  Monarchy.  When  a  danger,  so  pressing  that 
it  threatened  the  national  existence  of  Israel,  arose  in  the 
Philistine  ^  power,  the  need  of  a  visible  head  to  bind  the 
tribes  together,  and  animate  them  with  a  common  impulse, 
and  lead  them  against  the  common  enemy,  was  universally 
recognised,  and  the  people  demanded  that  Sanuiel  should 
give  them  a  king  to  "  go  out  before  us  and  fight  our 
battles"  (1  Sam.  viii.  20).  The  aged  seer,  though 
reluctant  to  see  the  ideal  sovereignty  of  Jehovah,  the 
feeling  of  which  should  have  been  enough  to  secure  the 
national  unity,  brought  down  and  materialised  in  the  form 
of  an  earthly  representative  king,  was  sagacious  and 
patriotic  enough  to  perceive  the  necessities  of  the  time, 
and  to  take  them  under  his  direction.  And  thus  arose 
the  Monarchy,  a  partial  attempt  in  the  same  direction 
having  abeady  been  made  by  Abimelech  (Judg.  ix.).  The 
history  of  this  period  is  recorded  in  the  Books  of 
Samuel. 

This  period  is  of  extreme  importance  in  the  literary 
and  religious  history  of  Israel.  Three  powerful  streams  of 
influence  take  their  rise  in  it,  and  run  tlu^ough  the  whole 
succeeding  history,  fertilising  and  enriching  it.  These  were, 
first,  the  prophetic  order ;  a   class   of  men  who   probably 

^  The  origin  of  tlie  Philistines  is  yet  far  from  certain.  They  eanie  from 
Caphtor  (Amos  ix.  7  ;  Deut.  ii.  23  ;  Jer.  xlvii.  4,  5),  sui)posed  by  some  to  be 
Cappadocia,  by  others  to  be  Crete,  or  Cyprus,  or  the  nortliern  Egyptian 
Delta.  They  either  were  Semites,  or  they  speedily  adopted  the  language 
and  religion  of  the  country.  Their  chief  god  appears  to  be  allied  to  the 
Aramaic  Marnas  and  the  Babylonian  Dag;),n.  The  time  of  their  settlement 
on  the  coast  of  Palestine  must  have  been  during  the  time  Israel  was  in 
Egypt. 


THE    DAVIDir    KTNUDOM  25 

existed  from  the  earliest  times  aloii*;-  witli  tlie  Nazirites 
(Amos  ii.  11),  but  who  acquired  an  inlhieiice  in  tlie  State 
at  this  period,  first  as  couusellors  and  seers  of  the  early 
kings  (Natlian,  Gad,  2  Sam.  xii.  1,  xxiv.  11),  and  ulti- 
mately as  an  independent  order  who  took  tlie  relii^ious 
destinies  of  the  nation  into  their  own  hands,  and  in  whose 
writings,  the  Prophetical  Scrii)tures,  we  have  the  fullest 
exposition  of  that  lofty  spiritual  religion  in  Israel  to  which 
the  New  Testament  directly  attaches  itself.  Secondly,  the 
elevation  of  the  Davidic  dynasty  to  the  throne.  The 
brilliant  reign  of  David,  whose  arms  extended  the  limits  of 
the  Jewish  State  till  for  those  days  it  miglit  justly  be 
named  an  empire,  became  the  ideal  of  after  ages ;  and 
when,  amidst  disaster  and  religious  decline,  men  looked 
back  to  it  and  transfigured  it  in  the  light  of  the  religious 
hopes  which  filled  their  minds,  it  became  the  type  both  of 
a  future  king  and  a  future  universal  kingdom  of  God  that 
would  arise  upon  the  earth  in  the  latter  days.  These 
special  predictions  of  the  perfection  of  the  kingdom  of  the 
Lord,  named  Messianic  prophecies,  all  borrow  their  form  and 
colours  from  this  powerful  reign.  And,  thirdly,  the  choice 
of  Jerusalem  as  the  centre  both  of  the  national  and  the 
religious  life  of  the  people.  The  infiueuce  of  the  Temple  of 
Solomon,  both  in  purifying  and  in  elevating  the  ritual  wor- 
ship, as  well  as  in  leading  ultimately  to  its  concentration  at 
one  shrine,  cannot  be  overestimated.  But  the  step  taken  by 
David  gave  a  colour  to  all  succeeding  literature.  l*atiiot- 
ism  and  religion  were  once  more  w^edded  together.  Jeru- 
salem was  not  only  the  perfection  (jf  l)eauty,  the  joy  of  the 
whole  earth  (Ps.  xlviii.  2),  it  was  also  tlie  *  hearth  '  of 
Jehovah,  who  dwelt  in  Zion  at  Jerusalem  (Isa.  xxix.  1). 
National  sentiment  mingled  with  religious  emotion  in  one 
powerful  stream,  and  the  union  has  given  to  tlie  religious 
poetry  of  Israel,  which  celebrates  '  Zion,'  or  longs  to  revisit 
it,  or  tells  that  its  dust  is  dear,  not  only  a  religious  value, 
but  a  never-dying  human  pathos. 

(4)   Disruption  of  the  Kingdom.       There  liad   existed 
from  of  old  a  jealousy  beLween  the  North   and  the  South, 


26    THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

between  the  powerful  tribe  of  Ephraim,  which  always 
aspired  to  the  leadership  of  tlie  tribes,  and  the  great  tiibe 
of  Judah.  We  see  already  in  the  Song  of  Deborah  the 
smaller  tribes  clustering  around  Ephraim,  and  learn  from 
the  fact  that  Judah  receives  no  mention  that  this  great 
family  had  already  begun  to  pursue  its  own  course  and  go 
its  own  way.  Naturally,  therefore,  when  the  unity  of 
the  tribes  under  the  Monarchy  was  subjected  to  a  great 
strain  under  Eehoboam,  it  broke  asunder,  and  two  king- 
doms arose,  existing  side  by  side,  sometimes  hostile  to  one 
another,  but  in  the  main  friendly.^  Though  neither  of  the 
two  kingdoms  might  prove  itself  sufficiently  strong  to  hold 
in  subjection  the  petty  States  of  Edom  and  Moab,  and  even 
to  maintain  its  own  against  the  more  powerful  kingdom 
of  Syria,  when  the  time  came  that  they  were  confronted 
with  the  imposing  empires  of  Assyria  and  Babylon,  they 
naturally  lost  their  independence,  first  Israel  at  the  hands 
of  Assyria  (721  B.C.),  and  then  Judah  at  the  hands  of 
Babylon  (586  B.C.),  and  became  merged  in  these  empires  as 
provinces.  The  internal  history  of  the  two  kingdoms  is 
told  in  the  Books  of  Kings ;  and  the  internal  condition 
of  the  people,  the  relaxation  of  morals,  the  struggles  of 
contending  parties,  and  the  cruel  idolatries  to  which  despair 
had  recourse,  are  reflected  in  the  pages  of  the  prophets — 
in  the  writings  of  Amos  and  Hosea  during  the  last  years 
of  Samaria ;  in  Isaiah  and  Micah  during  the  conflict  of 
Judah  with  Assyria  ;  and  in  Jeremiah  during  the  death 
struggle  of  Judah  with  Babylon. 

(5)  The  Exile  and  Eestoration  ;  Israel  a  religious  com- 
munity. As  one  colossal  empire  followed  another  and 
succeeded  to  the  inheritance  of  its  predecessor, — Babylon, 

^  Though  the  nation  now  formed  two  kingdoms,  not  always  friendly,  the 
conception  of  the  higher  unity  of  all  parts  of  Israel  still  filled  the  religious 
minds  of  the  country.  Hosea,  a  prophet  of  the  North,  lias  the  tenderest 
regard  for  Judah.  Amos,  a  native  of  Judah,  felt  called  to  preach  to 
Samaria.  And  all  Lsaiah's  earlier  prophecies  have  regard  both  to  Judah  and 
to  Israel,  which  to  his  mind  are  one  people  of  Jehovah  ;  and  he  addresses 
his  oracles  to  both  the  houses  of  Israel — Israel  and  Judah  (viii.  14).  Even 
Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  still  continue  to  speak  of  one  Israel — North  and  South. 


THE    EXILE    AND    RETURN  27 

Persia,  Orceoc,  and  liomc, — tlie  ])0()]tl(3  of  Isincl,  no  l(»ii!j,cr 
iiiclepcndoiit,  existed  as  a  coimnunity  governed  inteinally 
in  the  main  in  neeordanee  with  its  own  eoneeptions,  l>ut 
forming  externally  part  of  the  heathen  empire  for  the 
time.  Only  after  a  successful  revolt  against  the  Gra'co- 
Syrian  rule  of  tlie  Seleucids  did  the  ])eople  again  attain  to 
independence,  and  become  ruled  by  native  princes  for  abt)ut 
a  century  (167—63  B.C.).  It  then  fell  under  the  inlluence 
of  Eome,  which  finally  destroyed  the  city  and  temple, 
70  A.D. 

No  internal  history  of  the  Babylonian  Exile  has  been 
written ;  but  the  picture  of  the  desolation  of  the  land,  the 
sad  silence  in  the  streets  and  gates  of  Jerusalem,  which 
used  to  ring  with  the  joy  of  the  feasts,  and  the  sense  of 
abasement  and  contempt  into  which  the  people  had  fallen 
as  a  nation  among  the  nations,  together  with  the  flickerings 
of  a  faith  in  the  sure  mercies  of  the  Lord  that  refused  to 
be  quenched  (Lam.  iii.  22), — all  this  may  be  seen  in  the 
exquisite  collection  of  elegies  known  as  the  Lamentations, 
written  not  many  years  after  the  fall  of  the  city ;  while 
the  delirium  of  hope  raised  somewhat  later  by  the  victories 
of  Cyrus,  and  the  approaching  downfall  of  Babylon,  and 
the  brilliant  religious  anticipations  of  the  destruction  of 
idolatry  and  the  conversion  of  the  nations  to  the  true 
religion  of  Jehovah  through  the  ministration  of  Israel 
restored,  "  the  servant  of  the  Lord,"  fill  the  pages  of  the 
second  half  of  Isaiah  (chs.  xl.— Ixvi.). 

The  fortunes  of  the  returning  exiles  are  described  in 
Ezra  and  Neiiemiah,  and  their  hopes  and  despondencies 
in  the  three  prophets  of  the  Eeturn  (Zechariah,  Haggai, 
Malachi) ;  while  the  aims  and  faith  and  hopes  of  the  godly 
Israel  during  the  Maccabean  struggles  are  reflected  in  tlie 
Book  of  Daniel.  Thus,  amidst  all  the  vicissitudes  of  its 
eventful  history,  the  literary  activity  of  Israel  knew  no 
intermission.  The  great  literary  period  extends  from  800 
to  400  B.C.;  but  much  of  the  finest  historical  writing  is 
anterior  to  this  period,  while  several  important  books,  as 
Chronicles,  Jlcclesiastes,  and  Daniel,  fall  later. 


28     THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

8.   Litrrary  and  Hidorical  Crifirlsm  in  rdatioii  to  Old 
Testa ni cut  TJieolujjjj. 

It  is  admitted  that  the  order  in  wliich  the  Old 
Testament  literature  now  exists  is  not  the  historical 
order,  and  that  traditional  ideas  regarding  its  date  and 
authorship  require  sifting.  For  example,  it  is  acknow- 
ledged that  the  Pentateuch  is  not  a  homogeneous  work, 
the  composition  of  a  single  person  at  a  very  early 
date,  but  consists  of  a  number  of  distinct  writings, 
originating  at  different  periods,  all  down  the  people's 
history,  and  brought  together  at  various  times,  so  that 
it  gradually  assumed  its  present  shape  not  earlier  than 
about  500  B.C.;  and  that  there  are  elements  in  it  later 
than  this  period.  Similarly,  in  regard  to  the  prophetical 
writings,  though  the  dates  of  the  main  parts  of  the 
prophetical  literature  are  less  lialjle  to  discussion,  still 
it  is  a  fact  that  the  prophets  themselves  were  less  careful 
to  collect  their  own  prophecies  than  one  might  have 
expected.  Jeremiah,  for  example,  dictated  to  Baruch  an 
outline  of  his  prophecies  for  the  first  time  more  than 
tioenty  years  after  he  became  a  prophet.  The  prophecies, 
as  we  have  tliem,  are  the  work  of  collectors  or  editors, 
and  they  are  often  grouped  together  according  to  subjects, 
though  the  individual  prophecies  may  be  of  very  different 
.  dates,  or  even  different  ages ;  and,  further,  the  collectors, 
occasionally  at  least,  made  insertions  in  order  to  make  the 
prophecies  applicable  to  the  thought  and  religious  needs 
of  their  own  time.  Edification,  not  strict  literary  exact- 
ness and  discrimination  of  dates,  was  the  object  they 
pursued. 

The  newest  criticism  is  partly  textual  ci-iticism  and 
partly  literary.      It  moves  mainly  in  three  lines. 

1.  It  is  acknowledged  that  the  early  history  of  the 
world  (Oen.  x.,  xi.),  and  the  patriarchal  history,  and  even 
partly  the  history  of  tlie  Exodus,  were  not  written  down  till 
very  long  after  the  events  happened  which  aie  recorded. 
It  is  traditional  or  legendary.     The  question  arises,  How 


LITERARY    CRITICISM  29 

imu'li  ival  history  is  il.  poysiblo  tu  oxlrHct  IVoiii  tliis?  T\\c 
narrative  has  allinilies  witli  early  J*>aJ>yl()iiian  Irachlions, 
and  it  is  largely  coloureil  by  the  religious  seiitiiiieiits  of 
the  age  when  the  traditions  were  written  down.  How 
far,  e.g.,  are  the  Tatriarchs  real  persons,  or  ideal  types  of 
nationalities  (Esau  =  Edom  ;  Laban  =  Aranieans,  etc.),  or 
how  far  are  they  ideal  types  of  the  true  Israel  or  the 
true  Israelite  ? 

2.  Textual  criticism.  To  take  one  example.  Besides 
the  formally  poetical  books,  Psalms,  Job,  and  Proverbs, 
it  is  certain  that  much  of  the  early  prophecy  is  poetical. 
Now,  in  criticising  and  attempting  to  restore  the  text 
of  a  classical  poet,  the  metre  would  be  a  powerful  in- 
strument for  use  in  the  hand  of  the  critic.  Any  current 
text  where  the  metre  was  defective,  making  the  line  too 
long  or  too  short,  would  certainly  be  false.  The  line,  if 
too  long,  must  he  restored  by  some  omission ;  or,  if  too 
short,  by  some  insertion  or  change  of  words.  Must  the 
same  process  be  applied  to  Hebrew  poetry  ?  Many  scliolars 
reply  that  it  must.  Hence  enormous  changes  are  intro- 
duced— by  Duhm,  for  example — into  the  early  prophetic 
texts,  and  into  such  books  as  Job  and  the  Psalms. 

3.  As  to  literary  criticism,  hvo  principles  are  assumed 
as  undeniable.  (1)  The  language,  like  all  languages,  has  a 
history.  The  vocal)ulary  changes  in  process  of  time,  and 
to  some  extent  also  the  syntax.  After  Jeremiah  the 
Aramaic  language  begins  to  influence  the  Hebrew,  both 
in  vocal julary  and  in  style.  (2)  It  is  not  only  the  language 
that  has  a  history,  but  also  the  thought  of  the  nation. 
New  thouglits  arise.  Modes  of  contemplating  tilings  are 
seen  in  later  ages  which  w^ere  unknown  in  earlier  times ; 
and,  in  particular,  ideas  which  might  be  called  escliato- 
logical  hopes  and  outlooks  into  the  future  destiny  of  the 
nation  and  of  the  other  nationalities  of  the  world  become 
very  prevalent. 

Now,  these  principles  being  admitted,  and  it  being 
further  admitted  that  the  literature,  as  it  stands,  has 
been  collected   by  scripturahsts — I  use  that  word  rather 


X 


30  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

than  scribes — in  a  way  not  clnonological,  and  without 
discrimination  with  regard  to  what  is  ancient  and  wliat 
is  modern, — the  newest  criticism  feels  tluit  it  has  the 
task  before  it  of  applying  these  principles, — particularly 
those  relating  to  the  progressive  changes  in  the  language 
and  the  progressive  changes  in  the  religious  ideas,  and 
by  their  application  separating  the  elements  out  of  which 
the  present  texts  of  the  prophecies  have  been  composed, 
and  showing  which  is  ancient  and  which  is  recent.  Now, 
these  processes  are,  in  principle,  quite  legitimate.  No 
other  method  is  open.  But,  at  the  same  time,  a  door 
is  opened  to  subjective  and  individual  judgment,  and  the 
operation  is  necessarily  a  precarious  one.  The  literature 
is  very  limited.  An  idea  that  is  found  now  only  in  a 
late  writing  might  really  belong  to  an  earlier  time,  if  we 
only  had  a  more  extensive  literature  covering  that  time. 
J>ut  the  effect  of  the  criticism  referred  to  is  to  cut  up 
the  writings,  particularly  the  prophecies,  into  a  multitude 
of  fragments,  and  to  introduce  the  greatest  uncertainty 
into  the  exegesis.  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  this  kind 
of  criticism  has  gone  to  extremes  in  recent  times,  and 
has  had  the  effect  of  discrediting  the  criticism  which  is 
legitimate. 


//.   THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD. 

1.   General  Character  of  the  Old  Testament  Conception 
of  God. 

On  the  subject  of  God  the  ideas  of  the  ancient  world 
are  in  many  respects  different  from  our  own.  And  the 
ideas  of  the  Old  Testament  have,  in  these  points  of  difference, 
naturally  greater  affinity  witli  those  of  the  ancient  world 
in  general  than  with  ours.  One  such  point  of  difference 
^  is  this,  that  it  never  occurred  to  any  prophet  or  writer 
of  the  Old  Testament  to  prove  the  existence  of  God.  To 
do   so   might   well   have    seemed    an   absurdity.      For    all 


PRESUPPOSITIONS    OF   THE    DOCTRINE    OF   GOD       31 

Old  Testament  prophets  and  writers  move  among  ideas 
that  presuppose  God's  existence.  Prophecy  itself  is  tlie 
direct  product  of  His  intiucnce.  The  people  of  Israel  in 
their  cliaracter  and  relation  are  His  creation.  It  is  not 
acc(n'ding  to  the  spirit  of  the  ancient  world  in  u;eneral 
eitlier  to  deny  the  existence  of  God  or  to  use  arguments 
to  prove  it.  The  belief  was  one  natural  to  the  human 
mind  and  common  to  all  men.  Scripture  does  indeed 
speak  of  men  who  say  in  their  heart  there  is  no  God,  but 
these  are  the  fools,  that  is,  the  practically  ungodly ;  and 
their  denial  is  not  a  theoretical  or  speculative  one,  but 
merely  what  may  be  held  to  be  the  expression  of  their 
manner  of  life.  Even  the  phrase  "  there  is  no  God  "  hardly 
means  that  God  is  not,  but  rather  that  He  is  not  present, 
does  not  interfere  in  life ;  and  counting  on  this  absence  of 
God  from  the  affairs  of  the  world,  and  consequently  on 
impunity,  men  become  corrupt  and  do  abominable  deeds 
(Ps.  xiv.).  And  for  their  wickedness  they  shall  be  cast 
into  hell,  the  region  of  separation  from  God,  along  with  all 
the  nations  that  forget  God  (Ps.  ix.  17).  Yet  even  this 
forgetfulness  of  God  by  the  nations  is  regarded  as  something 
temporary.  It  is  a  forgetting  only ;  it  is  no  obliteration  of 
the  knowledge  of  God  from  the  human  mind.  That  is 
impossible,  and  these  nations  shall  yet  remember  and  turn 
unto  the  Lord.  Scripture  regards  men  as  carrying  with 
them,  as  part  of  their  very  thought,  the  conception  of  God. 
This  being  the  case,  the  Old  Testament  naturally 
lias  no  occasion  to  speculate  on  how  this  knowledge  that 
God  is  arises  in  the  mind.  Its  position  is  far  in  front  of 
this.  It  teaches  how  God  who  is,  is  known,  and  is  known 
to  be  what  He  is.  But  it  seems  nowhere  to  contemplate 
men  as  ignorant  of  the  existence  of  God,  and  therefore  it 
nowhere  depicts  the  rise  or  dawn  of  the  idea  of  God's 
existence  on  men's  minds.^     In  the  historical  period  the 

*  The  orif^in  of  the  idea  of  God,  tlie  ori.i^iu  of  religion,  is  a  quest  Ion  of 
great  interest.  As  the  origin  lies  so  lar  licyond  the  horizon  of  liistory,  little 
but  conjectures  regarding  it  need  he  looked  for.  We  perhajts  jterceive  two 
stages,  the  one  the  full  historical  stage,  such  as  it  meets  us  in  all  the  Old 


32     THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

idea  of  God's  existence  is  one  of  the  primary  tlioiights 
of  man.  He  comes  possessed  of  this  thought  to  face  and 
observe  the  world.  His  conception  of  God  already  possessed 
explains  the  world  to  him ;  the  world  does  not  suggest  to 
him  an  idea  hitlierto  strange,  that  of  the  existence  of  God. 
And,  of  course,  the  bare  idea  of  the  existence  of  God  is  not 
the  primary  thouglit  wliich  Scripture  supposes  all  men  to 
possess.  This  abstract  idea  gathers  body  al)out  it,  namely, 
a  certain  circle  of  ideas  as  to  what  God  is. 

And  with  these  ideas  the  Hebrew  took  up  liis  position 
over  against  the  world.  To  liim  God  and  the  world  were 
always  distinct.  God  was  not  involved  in  the  processes 
of  nature.  These  processes  were  caused  by  God,  but  were 
quite  distinct  from  God. 

The  Hebrew  thinker,  however,  came  down  from  his 
thought  of  God  upon  the  world ;  he  did  not  rise  from  the 
world  up  to  his  thought  of  God.      His  primary  thought  of 

Testament  writings ;  the  other,  one  lying  behind  this,  some  dim  traces  of 
which  we  may  perceive  iu  practices  occasionally  appearing  in  Israel,  or 
referred  to  in  the  history  of  the  Patriarchs  (such  as  Jacob's  anointing  with 
oil  the  stone  which  he  called  Beth -el,  the  place  of  God) ;  and  in  some  tilings 
treated  and  announced  as  superstitions  in  the  historical  period,  such  as 
seeking  for  the  living  unto  the  dead,  necromancy,  witchcraft,  and  the  like 
(Isa.  viii.  19).  It  has  been  thought  that  several  sources  of  the  religious  idea 
might  be  discovered,  as,  e.g.,  animism,  reverence  for  deceased  ancestors,  or 
for  heroes  of  the  tribe,  etc.  The  forces  of  nature,  and  man's  subjection  to 
them,  suggested  powers,  or  more  particularly  spirits,  as  they  were  unseen. 
These  were  located  in  various  natural  objects.  In  stones — generally  natural, 
but  afterwards  artificial,  places  were  prepared  for  the  spirit.  These  artificial 
stones  were  the  Maccebas  or  pillars.  They  either  became  altars  or  were 
placed  beside  altars.  We  find  theni  standing  Ijeside  the  altars  of  Jehovah, 
and  denounced  by  the  prophet  Hosea.  Other  oV)jects  to  which  the  spirit 
attached  itself  were  trees  and  fountains.  Hence  some  explain  the  part 
played  by  trees  in  the  patriarchal  history,  as  the  oak  of  Mamrc  near  Hebron, 
and  the  place  given  to  the  well  Bcersheba,  long  a  sanctuary,  as  Amos 
shows  (v.  7).  The  sacred  tree  was,  no  doubt,  common  in  Canaan,  and  was  a 
scat  of  the  god,  and  a  place  where  oracles  were  given  ;  hence  the  name  the 
Oak  of  the  Soothsayers  (Judg.  ix.  37).  A  later  substitute  for  this  sacred 
tree  was  the  Ashera — or  wooden  stock.  This  was  also  always  naturally 
beside  an  altar.  Possibly  many  practices  observed  in  mourning,  such  as 
cutting  oir  the  hair,  may  have  reference  to  dedication  of  the  hair  as  a  sacrifice 
to  the  dead.  Setting  food  before  the  dead  is  forbidden  in  Deuteronomy 
(xxvi.  14).  These  practices  in  historic  times  are  all  treated  as  heathen 
superstitions  iu  Israel,  and  forbidden. 


RELATION    TO    NATURAL    THKOLOGY  33 

God  explained  to  him  the  world,  both  its  existence  and  the 
course  of  events  upon  it ;  these  did  not  suggest  to  him 
citlier  tlic  existence  or  the  character  of  God,  these  being 
unknown  Do  liim.  Tlie  thought  of  tlie  Hebrew,  and  liis 
conlomplation  of  providence  and  life,  were  never  of  tlie 
nature  of  a  search  after  God  wliom  he  did  not  know,  l)ut 
always  of  the  nature  of  a  recognition  and  ol)servatiou  of 
the  operation  of  God  wlioni  he  already  knew.  There  seems 
no  })assage  in  the  Old  Testament  vvhicli  represents  men  as 
reacliing  the  knowledge  of  the  existence  of  God  through 
nature  or  the  events  of  providence,  although  there  are 
some  passages  which  imply  that  false  ideas  of  what  God  is 
may  be  corrected  by  the  observation  of  nature  and  life. 
AMien  the  singer  in  the  xixth  Psalm  says  that  "  the  heavens 
declare  the  glory  of  God,"  all  that  he  means  is  tliat  the 
glory  of  God,  who  is,  and  is  known,  and  is  Creator,  may 
be  seen  reflected  on  the  heavens.  But  the  Psalmist  only 
recognised  on  the  heavens  wdiat  he  already  carried  in  his 
lieart.  When,  however,  in  Isa.  xl.  25,  26,  Jehovah,  asks 
"  To  whom  then  w^ill  ye  liken  Me  ?  .  .  .  Lift  up  your  eyes 
on  high,  and  see  who  hath  created  these  things,  that 
luingeth  out  their  host  by  number,"  it  is  implied  that 
false  views  of  what  God  is  may  be  corrected,  or  at  least 
that  they  may  be  brought  home  to  men's  consciousness. 
There  is  an  approximation  to  the  arguments  of  Natural 
Theology  in  some  of  these  passages.  And  even  more  in  a 
passage  in  one  of  the  Psalms  (xciv.  5—11),  when,  speaking 
probably  of  the  excuses  of  the  heathen  rulers  of  Israel,  the 
writer  says  :  "  They  break  in  pieces  Thy  pe()})le,  0  Lord,  and 
afHict  Thine  heritage.  They  slay  the  widow  and  the 
stranger,  and  murder  the  fatherless.  And  they  say,  The 
Lord  doth  not  see,  neitlier  doth  the  God  of  Jacob  ol)serve. 
Consider,  ye  brutish  among  tlie  peo])le  :  and  ye  fools,  wlien 
will  ye  be  wise?  He  tliat  planted  the  ear,  sludl  He  not 
iiear  ?  He  that  formed  the  eye,  sliall  He  not  see  ?  He 
that  instructeth  the  nations,  shall  not  He  con-ect  ?  Errn 
He  that  teaclieth  men  kiKjwledire  ?      Tlie  Lord  knowclh  tli(! 

o 

thou'dits  of  men." 


34  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

TJiu  Old  Testament  as  little  thinks  of  arnuing  or 
proving  that  God  may  be  known  as  it  thinks  of  arguing 
that  He  exists.  Its  position  here  again  is  far  in  front 
of  snch  an  argument.  How  should  men  think  of  arguing 
tliat  God  could  be  known,  when  they  were  persuaded 
they  knew  Him,  when  they  knew  they  were  in  fellowship 
with  Him,  when  their  consciousness  and  whole  mind  were 
filled  and  aglow  with  the  thouglit  of  Him,  and  when 
through  His  Spirit  He  moved  them  and  enlightened  them, 
and  guided  their  whole  history  ?  There  is  nothing  strictly 
peculiar,  however,  here. 

The  peculiarity  of  the  Old  Testament  conception  rather 
comes  out  when  the  question  is  raised,  hoio  God  is  known. 
Here  we  touch  a  fundamental  idea  of  the  Old  Testament — 
the  idea  of  Revelation.  If  men  know  God,  it  is  because 
He  has  made  Himself  known  to  them.  This  knowledge  is 
due  to  what  He  does,  not  to  what  men  themselves  achieve. 
As  God  is  the  source  of  all  life,  and  as  the  knowledge  of 
Him  is  the  highest  life,  this  knowledge  cannot  be  reached 
by  any  mere  effort  of  man.  If  man  has  anything  of  God, 
he  has  received  it  from  God,  who  communicates  Himself  in 
love  and  grace.  The  idea  of  man  reaching  to  a  knowlege 
or  fellowship  of  God  through  his  own  efforts  is  wholly 
foreign  to  the  Old  Testament.  God  speaks,  He  appears ; 
man  listens  and  beholds.  God  brings  Himself  nigh  to  men  ; 
He  enters  into  a  covenant  or  personal  relation  with  them ; 
He  lays  commands  on  them.  They  receive  Him  when  He 
approa(?hes  ;  they  accept  His  will  and  obey  His  behests.^ 
Moses  and  the  prophets  are  nowhere  represented  as 
thoughtful  minds  rellecting  on  tlie  Unseen,  and  forming 
conclusions  regarding  it,  or  ascending  to  elevated  concep- 
tions of  Godhead.  The  Unseen  manifests  itself  before 
them,  and  they  know  it. 

Such  a  revelation  of  God  is  everywhere  supposed  in  the 

Old  Testament.      God  is  not  a  God  tliat  liides  Himself  in 

the  sense  that  He  is  self-engrossed  or  Relf-absor1)ed.      His 

Spirit  streams   through   the  world,  producing  all  life  and 

1  Cf.  Schultz,  AUtest.  Theol,  fiiufte  Autl.  pp.  397,  398. 


IDEA    OF    REVELATION  35 

maintaining  it,  and  begetting  in  men  a  followsliip  with  tlie 
life  of  God.  His  word  goes  fortli  to  tlie  world  that  it  sliall 
be,  and  shall  be  upholden,  and  to  men  that  tlie}^  may  know 
Him  and  live  in  Him.  He  appears  and  manifests  Himself 
to  the  patriarchs  in  angelic  forms,  to  the  prophets  in  the 
inspiration  of  their  minds,  in  visions  and  dreams  or  spiritual 
intuitions,  and  to  Moses  speaking  face  to  face.  The  form 
of  His  manifestation  of  Himself  may  change,  but  the  reality 
of  it  remains  the  same.  The  conviction  in  the  mind  of  the 
prophet  that  God  revealed  Himself  and  His  word  to  him 
when  the  truth  broke  upon  his  mind,  was  not  less  vivid 
than  that  of  the  patriarch  who  was  visited  by  angelic 
forms  when  sitting  in  the  door  of  his  tent.  The  prophet 
speaks  the  word  of  God,  has  his  ear  awakened  by  God,  is 
the  messenger  and  interpreter  of  God,  as  much  as  Moses 
who  saw  the  God  of  Israel  on  the  mount.  And  this  is  not 
because  the  prophet  rose  to  the  conception  of  God,  or 
attained  to  know  His  will  by  reflection.  It  was  because 
God  called  him  and  put  His  words  in  his  mouth. 

But,  however  much  the  Old  Testament  reposes  on 
the  ground  that  all  knowledge  of  God  comes  from  His 
revealing  Himself,  and  that  there  is  such  a  true  and 
real  revelation,  it  is  far  from  implying  that  this  revelation 
of  God  is  a  full  display  of  Him  as  He  really  is.  An 
exhaustive  communication  of  God  cannot  be  made,  because 
the  creature  cannot  take  it  in.  Neither,  perhaps,  can 
God  communicate  Himself  as  He  is.  Hence  Moses  saw 
only  a  form,  saw  only  His  back  parts.  His  face  could 
not  be  beheld.  Thus  to  the  patriarchs  He  appeared  in 
the  human  form.  So  in  the  tabernacle  His  presence 
was  manifested  in  the  smoke  that  hung  over  the  Ark. 
So,  too,  in  Eden  He  was  known  to  be  present  in  the 
clierubim,  who  were  the  divine  chariot  on  wliich  He  rode. 
All  these  things  signified  His  presence,  while  at  the  same 
time  intimating  that  in  Himself  He  could  not  be  seen. 
Yet  this  may  refer  only  to  a  bodily  vision  of  Him.  There 
is  no  trace  of  the  idea  in  the  Old  Testament  that  God,  as 
revealed  to  men,  is  not  really  God  as  He  is  in  Himself. 


36  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD   TESTAMENT 

There  is  no  such  idea  as  that  His  revelation  of  Himself  is 
meant  merely  to  be  regulative  of  human  life,  while  what 
He  is  in  truth  remains  far  away  in  a  transcendental  back- 
ground, out  of  wliich  it  is  impossible  for  it  to  advance,  or 
unto  which  it  is  impossible  for  men  to  approach.  The 
revelation  God  gives  of  Himself  is  a  revelation  of  Himself 
as  He  is  in  truth.  Yet  it  may  be  impossible  to  reveal 
Himself  fully  to  men,  and  it  is  impossible  for  any  form 
appreciable  to  the  senses  either  to  contain  Him  or  do  much 
more  than  indicate  His  presence.  The  Hebrew  idea  of 
God,  however,  is  not  physical ;  it  nowhere  speculates  on 
His  essence ;  its  idea  of  Him  is  ethical. 

This  conception  of  revelation  is  just  the  characteristic 
conception  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  reposes  on  such  ideas 
as  that  Jehovah  is  a  living  God,  and  that  He  rules  by  His 
activity  all  the  life  of  men.  And  it^„repi).sefi._on._tiie  idea 
that  the  religimis-  life  .  of  men  is  .mainly  their  practical 
conduct.  And  revelation  is  His  ruling  practically  the 
whole  life  of  the  people  by  making  known  His  will.  This 
must  be  done  to  individual  persons,  not  to  the  whole 
people  directly.  Hence  all  revelation  is  oral,  because  it  is 
continuous — the  constant  impression  by  Himself  of  the 
living  God.  Even  the  priests'  decisions  on  questions  of 
right  between  man  and  man — their  tomli — were  oral,  and 
always  caused  by  occasions.  Now,  on  man's  side  this 
revelation  was  an  operation  of  Jehovah  in  tlie  mind. 
Eevelation  was  the  arising  in  the  mind  of  man  of  thoughts 
or  impulses  accompanied  by  the  conviction  that  the 
thoughts  and  impulses  were  from  God.  In  such  thoughts 
the  mind  of  man  and  God  coalesced,  and  the  man  was 
conscious  of  meeting  God. 


2.   The  Idea  of  the  Divine  Name, 

In  so  far  as  God  reveals  Himself  He  acquires  a  name. 
Men  call  that  which  tliey  know  by  a  name.  God,  in  reveal- 
ing Himself,  proclaimed  His  own  name — Jehovah,  Jehovah 
merciful  and  gracious.    Among  the  Hebrews  the  name  was 


THE   NAME    OF    GOD  37 

never  a  mere  sign  whereby  one  person  could  be  distinguished 
from  another.  It  always  remained  descriptive  ;  it  expressed 
tlie  meaning  of  the  person  or  thing  designated.  The 
name  bore  the  same  relation  to  the  significance  of  the 
thing  or  person  as  a  word  does  to  a  thought.  It  was  always 
tlie  expression  of  it.  Hence  wlien  a  person  acquired  a 
new  significance,  wlien  he  began  to  play  a  new  role,  or 
entered  into  new  relations,  or  was  in  some  sense  a  new 
man,  he  received  a  new  name.  Therefore  Abram  became 
Abraham  ;  Jacob,  Israel ;  Solomon,  Jedidjah — '  beloved  of 
God'  (2  Sam.  xii.  25).  So  even  to  God  men  liave  a 
name.  Thus  He  calls  IMoses  and  Cyrus  by  their  name. 
That  is,  He  conceives  to  Himself  what  their  significance 
is,  what  meaning  they  have  in  His  redemptive  providence ; 
and  He  recognises  tliis,  and  enters  into  relations  with 
them  as  men  having  this  meaning.  And  the  same  is 
true  of  God's  own  names.  Such  a  name  expresses  that 
which  is  known  to  men  of  the  nature  of  God.  When 
a  new  or  higher  side  of  the  Being  of  God  is  revealed 
to  men  there  arises  a  new  name  of  God.  Any  name  of 
God  expresses  some  revelation  of  His  Being  or  character. 
When  the  word  ncwie  is  used  absolutely  as  God's  name,  it 
describes  His  nature  as  revealed,  as  finding  outward  expres- 
sion. So  when  the  Psalmist  in  Ps.  viii.  exclaims,  "  How 
excellent  is  Thy  name  in  all  the  earth  ! "  he  means  how 
glorious  is  God's  revelation  of  Himself,  or  God  as  revealed 
on  the  earth, — that  is,  among  the  family  of  men,  whom  He 
has  so  dignified  as  to  put  them  over  the  work  of  His  hands, 
with  all  things  under  their  feet.  His  grace  to  men  is  His 
name  here.  His  revelation  of  Himself.  So  when  Israel  is 
warned  to  give  heed  to  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  that  leads 
them,  for  His  name  is  in  him  (Ex.  xxiii.  21),  the  sense  is 
that  the  significance  of  God  is  present  tliere ;  wliat  God  is, 
His  majesty  and  authority,  is  there  embodied.  So  His 
name  is  holy  and  reverend ;  He,  as  being  what  He  is 
known  to  Ije,  is  reverendus. 

Occasionally,  perhaps,  as  the  name  is  properly  a  full 
description   of   the   nature,   the   expression   7iame   of    Gud 


38    THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

may  refer  rather  to  what  God  is  in  Himself  than  to  that 
which  He  lias  revealed  Himself  to  be.  But  ordinarily, 
at  least,  the  latter  idea  is  predominant ;  and  even  when 
he  swears  by  His  name,  or  when,  '  for  His  name's  sake,' 
He  blots  out  transgression,  or  will  not  cast  off  Israel,  the 
idea  is  that  on  account  of  what  He  has  given  men  to  know 
tliat  He  is,  because  He  has  manifested  Himself  to  Israel, 
and  in  relation  with  Israel  to  the  world,  therefore  He  will 
not  cast  away  Israel  (Ezek.  xxiii.— xxxviii.).  This  use  of 
*  for  His  name's  sake '  is  comparatively  late  —  in  Isaiah 
only  in  the  prose  ;  in  Second  Isaiah,  and  often  in  Ezekiel, 
and  later  Psalms.  The  ideas  connected  with  this  expres- 
sion appear  to  be  these :  (1)  In  the  mind  of  the  writer 
Jehovah  is  God  alone.  But  (2)  He  is  known  to  the  world, 
the  nations  of  mankind,  as  Jehovah,  God  of  Israel.  All 
the  knowledge  they  have  of  Him  is  of  Him  as  God  of 
Israel — who  had  led  Israel  out  of  bondage,  and  done  great 
things  for  them  in  the  wilderness  and  in  their  history. 
(3)  Jehovah's  purpose  is  to  reveal  Himself  to  all  mankind. 
This  revelation  has  already  begun  in  Israel  and  through 
Israel.  It  is  only  as  God  of  Israel  that  the  nations  know 
Him — the  one  God.  It  is  only,  therefore,  through  Israel 
that  He  can  reveal  Himself  to  tliem.  The  name,  therefore, 
for  whose  sake  He  is  besought  to  save  Israel,  is  the  name 
Jehovah,  known  to  the  nations,  and  revealed  in  His 
redemption  of  Israel  of  old,  and  in  Israel's  history.  Hence, 
when  He  finally  redeems  Israel,  His  glory  appears  to  all 
nesh. 


3.   Pai'ticular  Names  of  God. 

Though  the  Name  of  God  has  this  significance,  it  is 
rather  descriptions  of  Him  as  Jehovah  merciful  and  gracious, 
and  such  like,  that  carry  with  them  this  meaning  and 
express  this  insight  into  what  He  is,  than  what  is  known 
as  strictly  the  Divine  names.  Not  much  can  bo  drawn 
from  these.  They  are  chiefly  two,  Elohim  and  Jehovah ; 
the  one  a  general  name  for  God,  that  is,  an  appellative 


PARTICULAR   NAMES    OF   GOD  39 

expressing  the  conception  God,  and  therefore  ]i;iving  no 
special  significance;  the  other  Jeliovah,  tlie  y?6'y<S(>7iaZ  name 
of  the  God  of  Israel. 

But  these  are  not  the  only  names.  There  is  the  term 
El  (p^),  which,  like  Flohim,  expresses  the  general  idea  of  God. 
There  are  also  the  terms  El-Shaddai,  El-Elyon,  which  are 
descriptive  titles  applied  to  GoTl ;  and  there  is  the  singular 
Eloach.  The  names  El,  Elohim,  El-Shaddai^  and  the 
term  Jehovah  itself,  appear  all  to  be  prehistoric.  The  most 
widely  distributed  of  all  these  names  is  El.  It  appears  in 
Babylonian,  Phoenician,  Aramaic,  Hebrew,  and  Arabic, 
especially  South  Arabic.  It  belongs,  therefore,  to  the  whole 
Shemitic  world.  Gesenins  and  many  more  have  taken  it 
to  be  a  part  of  a  verb  i^ix  =  to  be  strong.  But  other  ex- 
planations have  been  advanced.  Noldeke,  e.g.,  would  con- 
nect it  with  the  Arabic  root  'ill  =  to  be  in  front,  whence 
avni'al  =  first ;  according  to  which  the  idea  would  be  that  of 
governor  or  leader.  Dillmann  would  refer  it  to  a  supposed 
root  rh^y  with  the  sense  of  j^oicer  or  might ;  while  Lagarde 
would  seek  its  explanation  in  a  root  supposed  to  be  related 
to  the  preposition  '^^,  so  that  it  would  designate  God  as  the 
goal  to  which  man  is  drawn,  or  toward  which  he  is  to  strive. 
This  last  explanation  is  entirely  impossible.  The  idea  of 
Deity  implied  in  it  is  too  abstract  and  metaphysical  for  the 
most  ancient  times.  No  satisfactory  derivation  has  as  yet 
been  suggested. 

Equally  obscure  is  the  name  ^^^,  which  we  translate 
Almighty.  In  poetry  the  word  is  used  alone;  in  prose 
it  is  usually  coupled  with  ^^,  —  God  Almighty.  The 
derivation  and  meaning  are  uncertain.  It  is  an  archaic 
term.  According  to  P,  it  was  the  name  of  God  that 
was  used  by  the  patriarchs  (Gen.  xvii.  1  ;  Ex.  vi.  3).  It 
marked  in  that  case  an  advance  upon  El  and  Elohim.  The 
tradition  tliat  it  is  an  archaic  name  is  supported  by  the 
Book  of  Job,  where  the  patriarchal  and  pre-Mosaic  speakers 
use  it.  It  is  also  supported  by  such  names  among  the 
people  of  the  Exodus  as  Zurishaddai  =  '  Shaddai  is  my  rock' 
(Num.  i.  G).    Some  have  suggested  an  Arameau  root,  xn^'  = 


40    THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

to  pour  out,  and  liavc  taken  tlie  name  to  designate  the  rain- 
or  storm-f/dd.  Others  would  derive  it  from  mi'*,  giving  it 
the  sense  of  '  the  destroyer/  or  more  particularly  the  storm- 
god  or  the  scorching  sun-god.  But  there  is  little  probability 
in  such  derivations.  Tlie  oldest  Babylonian  names  for  God 
are  all  equally  unresolval)le.  The  meaning  of  Islitar  or 
Astarte,  Marduk  (Merodach),  and  the  like,  cannot  be  ascer- 
tained. The  Jewish  scholars  resolve  '''1^  into  ^"^  ^  (itJ'N)  = 
he  who  is  sufficient ;  but  whether  self-sufficiency  is  meant, 
or  sufficiency  for  others,  is  left  uncertain.  It  is  probable 
that  the  Sept.  translators,  or  some  of  them,  already  knew 
this  etymology,  as  they  occasionally  render  the  term  by 
t/cai/09.  Some  Assyrian  scholars  would  now  refer  it  to  the 
Assyrian  Shadu  —  mountain,  taking  it  to  be  a  designation 
of  God  either  as  the  '  Most  High '  or  as  '  the  Mountain,' 
on  the  analogy  of  the  Hebrew  term  for  God,  the  Rock. 
The  most  that  can  be  said  of  it  is  that  Shaddai  may 
be  an  epithet  with  the  idea  of  Almighty,  as  Elyon  is  an 
epitliet  of  El  with  the  idea  of  '  Most  High.'  The  phrase 
El  Shaddai  may  be  simply  an  intensification  of  El  itself, 
and  it  is  possible  that  this  intensification  might  express 
the  clarification  of  the  idea  of  the  Divine  wliich  took 
place  in  Abraham's  mind  at  the  time  of  his  call.  It  may 
have  been  this  idea  that  his  faith  took  hold  of,  and  wliich 
sustained  him  when  committing  himself  to  an  unknown 
way — *  God  the  Omnipotent ' — able  in  all  places  to  protect 
him. 

As  to  the  term  Eloach,  •i'^-'^J  (Aram.  6lah,  Arab,  ilah), 
it  may  be  an  augmentation  of  El,  and  express,  as  is 
commonly  understood,  the  idea  of  iwiocr,  might.  But  even 
this  is  uncertain.  Some  suppose  it  to  be  a  literary  for- 
mation taken  from  the  plural  Elohim.  But  the  Aramaic 
and  Arabic  forms  are  against  this ;  for  these  are  similar 
singular  forms,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  them  to 
be  late  forms.  The  term  Eloach  occurs  in  poetry,  and  now 
and  then  in  late  prose. 

The  word  Elohim  is  a  plural,  and  probably  a  plural 
of  that  sort  called  the  plural  of  majesty  or  emirien^,  more 


THE    NAME    ELOHIM  41 

accurately  the  plural  of  fulness  or  greatness.  Tt  is  counnon 
in  the  East  to  use  the  plural  to  express  the  idea  of  the 
singular  in  an  intensified  form.  Thus  the  Egyptian  fellah 
says  not  rah  for  master,  but  arhdh ;  so  in  Hebrew  the  name 
l^aal  =  Lord,  oumer,  ruler,  is  used  in  the  plural  though 
the  sense  be  singular ;  cf.  Isa.  i.  3,  "  the  ox  knoweth 
his  owner,  and  the  ass  his  master's  crib "  (1 Y??  ^^^^). 
The  singular  of  Eloliim  means  probably  sti-ength,  power,  or 
might,  and  the  plural  merely  intensifies  this  idea  —  the 
might  par  excellence,  or  tlie  plenitude  of  might,  is  God. 
The  name  is  common  to  Israel  with  most  of  the  Shemitic 
peoples.  The  plural  form  is  unquestionably  prehistoric, 
i.e.  it  was  in  use  before  Israel  became  a  people.  In  use 
it  is,  though  a  plural,  regularly  construed  with  a  singular 
verb  or  adjective,  except  that  occasionally,  in  E,  it  has 
the  plural  verb  and  adjective.^ 

Some  have  regarded  the  plural  form  Elohim  as  a 
remnant  of  Polytheism.  But  to  speak  of  '  the  gods '  is 
not  natural  in  a  primitive  age,  and  this  can  scarcely  be 
the  orighi  of  the  plural.  No  doul)t  it  is  the  case  that 
the  angels  or  superhuman  beings  are  also  called  Elohim., 
just  as  they  are  called  Elim ;  and  there  might  lie  in 
that  the  idea  that  the  superhuman  world,  the  ruler  of 
man's  destiny,  was  composed  of  a  plurality  of  powers. 
This  would  not  point  to  Polytheism,  however,  but  rather 
to  the  earlier  stage  of  religion  called  Animism  or  Spiritism, 
when   men   thought   their   lives   and  destiny   were   under 

^  The  name  Sx  is  the  oldest  name  for  God  ;  Babylonian  Uu,  where  u  is 
nominative  case  ;  Arabic,  Hldh  ;  Aram.  'eldh.  Some  think  that  wrhit.  is 
plural  of  "?><,  through  insertion  of  an  h,  as  hdn,  nincN,  maids.  I  liave  not 
seen  any  examples  of  this  insertion  except  in  feminine  nouns,  and  the  h  in 
Arabic  ilah  seems  to  indicate  that  it  is  not  peculiar  to  the  plural.  The 
Syriac  ShemoMn  is  probably  artificial,  as  Shem  has  the  fem.  pi,  in  Hebrew 
and  Aramaic.  The  attempt  to  connect  El  Elohim  with  clah,  elon,  names  of 
trees  (Marti-Kayser),  scarcely  deserves  notice.  The  general  idea  has  been 
that  *?}<  is  connected  with  '?iN  =  to  be  strong  ;  if  this  were  the  case  the  vowel  e 
would  be  long,  but  it  does  not  seem  to  be.  The  suggestion  that  the  phiral 
was  first  used  of  the  deities  of  some  particular  locality  (W.  R.  Smith)  has 
its  difficulties,  as  usually  each  locality  had  only  one  deity.  The  idea  that 
Elohim  meant  the  fulness  of  powers  contained  in  God  (Dillmann),  is  too 
abstract. 


•12  THE   TIIKOLOOY    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

Uie  iiillueiKM^  of  a  iiniltilu<lo  of  foivos  or  jjowcis,  which, 
hoiiij^  uiisccMi,  were  noiicoivod  of  as  spirits,  inhahitiiig 
stones,  trees,  and  waters,  or  tlic  like.  If  tliis  were  the 
orJL^nn  of  the  phiral,  it  would  point  to  a  far  back  pre- 
liistorlc  time.  It  would  express  in  a  sense  an  advance 
upon  Animism,  inasmuch  as  tlie  various  spirits  were  no 
longer  considered  independent  and  multifarious,  but  were 
combined  into  a  unity,  and  thought  of  as  acting  in  concert. 
The  next  step  to  this  would  be  the  individualising  of  this 
unity,  and  the  rise  of  Monotheism ;  or,  at  any  rate,  there 
would  perhaps  arise  the  idea  that  among  these  Elohim  one 
was  monarch  and  the  rest  subsidiary  and  his  servants. 
This  is  not  unlike  the  representation  in  many  parts  of  the 
Old  Testament,  where  Jehovah  in  heaven  is  surrounded  by 
a  court,  a  multitude  of  other  beings  who  are  His  messengers. 
This  idea  is  frequent  in  Scripture  ;  but  whether  it  arose  in 
the  manner  just  suggested  may  be  doubtful.  If  we  compare 
the  names  employed  by  the  Shef^iitic  nations  surrounding 
Israel,  we  discover  that  they  all  express  very  much  the  same 
idea,  namely,  that  of  power  or  rule.  They  express  a  high  level 
of  thought  regarding  God.  None  of  them  is  a  name  for 
the  heavens,  or  any  of  the  forces  of  nature  in  its  more 
material  aspect.  They  are  all  abstractions  going  beyond 
phenomena ;  they  express  the  idea  of  a  Being  who  is  over 
plienomena,  who  has  a  metaphysical  existence.  Tliey  are 
altogether  unlike  such  names  as  Zeu?  (Dyaus),  the  bright 
sky,  or  Pluehus  A j  olio,  or  lAicina.  Such  names  as  El, 
Elohim,  wlien  we  remember  that  the  Shemite  attributed  all 
force  or  jjower  to  spirit,  immediately  lead  to  the  conception 
of  a  spiritual  being. 

Such  names  as  El-Elyon,  El-Shaddai,  do  not  of  them- 
selves imply  Monotheism,  inasmuch  as  one  God  Most  High, 
or  Almighty,  might  exist  though  there  were  minor  gods ;  yet 
when  a  people  worsliipped  only  one  God,  and  conceived  Him 
as  Most  High,  or  Almighty,  the  step  was  very  short  to 
^fonotheism. 

Again,   such    names   as      Eternal  God,'    'Living  God,' 
at  once  suggest  spirituality ;  for  to  the  Shemitic  mind,  at 


FIRST    CONCEPTIONS    OF   GOD  48 

least  to  felic  Hebrews,  life  lay  in  ilie  s]»irit  wliicli  they 
called  the  spirit  of  life.  Willioiit,  therefore,  committing 
ourselves  to  the  opinion  that  the  ahstnict  (M)nceptions 
of  Monotheism  or  spirituality  were  in  the  mind  of  the 
worshippers  in  the  patriarchal  age,  we  can  perceive  tluit 
their  conceptions  of  God  at  least  did  not  diller  greatly 
from  those  which  we  now  have. 

The  stage  of  religion  wliich  these  Divine  names  suggest 
was  probably  not  the  first  stage  of  Shemitic  religion,  nor 
was  it  the  last.  It  is  always  difficult  to  arrive  at  the  first 
conceptions  of  God  among  any  people.  Possibly  in  the 
main  they  originate  in  impressions  produced  on  man  by  the 
heavens  in  their  various  aspects.  These  aspects  awaken 
feelings  in  man  of  a  power  above  him,  or  it  may  be  of  many 
powers.  This  is  probably  the  primary  conception  of  God. 
This  primary  conception  may  be  monotheistic,  if  the  phe- 
nomena observed  be  considered  due  to  some  power  above 
them, — and  this  is  the  stage  to  which  the  Shemitic  names 
for  God  belong ;  or  polytheistic,  if  the  phenomena  them- 
selves be  considered  powers,  or  the  manifestation  of  separate 
powers.  But  the  Shemitic  religions  did  not  remain  on  this 
level.  So  far  as  we  know  them,  they  either  advanced,  like 
the  religion  of  Israel,  or  declined.  One  can  readily  per- 
ceive how  Polytheism  would  arise  at  a  later  stage  by  the 
mere  fact  of  different  names  existing.  It  was  forgotten  or 
not  observed  that  these  names  originally  expressed  very 
much  the  same  idea,  although  one  tribe  used  one  name  and 
another  a  different  one.  The  names  used  by  different  tribes 
were  naturally  considered  different  gods.  By  length  of 
time  their  worship  had  taken  different  forms  of  development 
among  the  different  tribes  ;  and  this  variety  of  cultus,  coupled 
with  the  different  name,  suggested  a  different  deity. 

The  most  various  and  contradictory  conclusions  have 
been  reached  on  the  question.  What  was  the  primary  form 
of  the  Shemitic  religion  ?  and  on  the  question.  What  was  it 
that  suggested  the  conception  of  God  which  we  observe 
existing  ?  There  is  no  doubt  that  among  the  Canaanites 
and  Phoenicians,  Baal  was  connected  with  the  sun ;  the  sun 


44    THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

was  l>aal,  or  V>iu\\  resided  in  the  sun.  And  attempts  have 
been  made  to  eonneet  the  (Jod  of  Israel  eitlier  with  the 
Sun,  the  god  of  fire,  or  with  Saturn.  These  attempts  have 
httle  foundation,  and  cannot  be  said  to  have  had  much 
success.  It  is,  no  doul)t,  true  that  the  God  of  Israel 
is  often  comjjared  to  a  fire, — Ilis  feet  touch  tlie  land, 
and  it  melts  (Amos  ix.  5).  But  that  is  in  metaphor. 
Otliers,  again,  have  pursued  a  (Ullerent  line.  It  is  certain 
that  some  of  the  Sliemitic  tribes,  such  as  the  Arabs, 
worshi])])ed  stones ;  and  it  has  been  supposed  that  the 
primary  religion  of  Israel  was  this  stone-worship.  Jacob 
set  up  a  stone.  Jehovah  is  often  named  '  Rock,'  and  even 
called  the  '  Stone  of  Israel.'  Professor  Dozy,  of  Leyden, 
thouglit  that  the  passage  in  Isaiah,  "  Look  unto  the  rock 
whence  ye  were  hewn,  and  to  the  hole  of  the  pit  whence 
ye  were  digged  "  (li.  1), — the  reference  being  to  Abraham 
and  Sarah, — showed  that  Abraham  and  Sarah  were  two 
stone  deities  of  early  Israel.  Von  Hartmann,  again,  took 
a  different  line,  supposing  that  Abram  means  High  Father, 
and  Sarah  princess,  queen  ;  and  that  the  two  are  still  deities, 
names  for  the  supreme  god  and  his  consort — the  sun  and 
moon.  And  Kuenen  considered  Saturn  to  have  been  the 
original  object  of  Israel's  worship,  according  to  the  passage 
in  Amos  :  "  Ye  have  borne  ...  the  star  of  your  god." 
(v.  26).  But  Kuenen  was  probably  mistaken  in  his 
opinion  that  the  prophet  describes  the  events  in  the  wilder- 
ness in  that  passage. 

These  instances  are  sufficient  to  show  the  worth  of 
attempts  of  this  kind.  There  is  absolutely  no  material,  and 
the  imagination  has  unlimited  scope. 

Our  position  must  be  this :  We  have  no  knowledge  of 
the  early  Shemitic  worsliip.  How  the  ideas  of  God  arose  it 
is  im]K)ssil)le  to  say;  their  origin  lies  beyond  the  horizon  of 
hist(jry.  So  far  as  Israel  is  concerned,  the  comparison  of 
God  to  a  rock,  or  a  stone,  or  fire,  or  anything  material, 
is  now  entirely  figurative,  and  meant  to  express  ethical 
properties. 

The  names  I  have  referred  to  are  scarcely  elements  of 


THE   NAME   JEHOVAH  45 

revelation.  They  are  names  preceding  revelation,  at  least 
to  the  family  of  Israel,  which  have  been  adopted  by 
Scripture.  Neitlier  Elohim  nor  El  is  a  revealed  name. 
They  are,  however,  names  that  truly  express  the  attributes 
or  being  of  God,  and  could  be  adopted  by  Scri})tiire.  It  is 
possible,  however,  in  view  of  what  is  said  in  Ex.  vi.  2,  that  the 
name  SJiaddai  may  be  an  element  of  revelation.  The  state- 
ment given  there  as  to  God  appearing  to  tlie  fathers  of  the 
Hebrew  race  as  El-Shaddai,  is  made  by  the  writer  who  is 
usually  known  as  the  Elohist.  There  is  every  reason  to 
regard  the  statement,  as  historical.  And  if  we  look  into 
the  1st  chapter  of  the  Book  of  Numbers,  which  refers  to 
the  time  of  the  Exodus,  we  find  certain  names  compounded 
with  Shaddai.  The  author  of  the  Book  of  Job  also  shares 
the  idea  of  the  Elohist,  and  puts  Shaddai  into  tlie  mouth  of 
his  patriarchal  speakers. 

4.    The  Name  Jehovah. 

Much  has  been  written  on  the  subject  of  the  name 
Jehovah,  but  little  light  has  been  cast  upon  it.  A  few 
things  may  be  mentioned  in  regard  to  it.  (1)  It  seems 
a  name  peculiar  to  the  people  of  Israel,  to  this  branch 
of  the  Shemitic  family.  This  is  no  more  remarkable 
than  that  Chemosh  should  be  peculiar  to  Ammon,  another 
branch,  or  Moloch  to  Moab,  still  another.  The  word  does 
appear  in  proper  names  of  other  tribes,  but  when  used 
by  them  it  seems  borrowed.  (2)  From  prehistoric  times 
it  is  probable  that  God  was  worshipped  by  this  family 
under  this  name,  or  at  least  that  the  name  was  known 
in  Israel ;  the  mother  of  Moses  has  a  name  compounded 
with  it,  and  it  is  certain  that  the  name  became  at 
the  Exodus  the  name  of  God  in  covenant  with  Israel. 
But  the  fact  that  Moses  could  come  before  Israel  with 
this  name  as  known  to  Israel,  implies  that  it  was  not 
new  in  liis  day.  (3)  The  real  derivation  and  meaning  of 
the  name  are  wholly  unknown.  Its  true  pronunciation 
has  also  been   lost,   from   the  rise   of  a   superstition   that 


46  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

il  was  unlawful  t()  pronounce  it.  This  superrtition  prob- 
;il»ly  is  railiiM-  llia.n  the  Septuagint  translation,  which 
rendei-s  it  hy  Kvpio^,  just  as  the  Massorotcs  sul)stitute 
Adhonai  for  it.  (4)  In  tlie  Pentateuch  the  word  is  brought 
into  connection  with  the  verb  to  he.  This,  however,  is 
not  an  account  of  tlie  actual  origin  of  the  name,  but  only 
a  ]»lay  at  most  referring  to  its  significance,  or  perhaps 
more  probably  connecting  a  significance  with  it.  But  the 
significance  thus  connected  with  it  is  of  extreme  import- 
ance, because  it  expresses,  if  not  the  original  meaning  of 
the  name,  which  probably  had  been  lost,  the  meaning 
which  it  suggested  to  the  mind  of  Israel  during  their 
historic  period. 

And  this,  not  its  primary  sense,  is,  of  course,  what 
is  important  for  us.  As  connected  with  the  verb  to 
he,  it  is  the  third  singular  imperfect.  When  spoken  by 
Jehovah  Himself  this  is  the  first  person  '^^.J}^y  or  in  a 
longer  form,  which  merely  makes  more  absolute  the  simple 
form,  ^]r\^.  "V^  ^'J}^..  The  verb  to  he  in  Hebrew  hardly 
expresses  the  idea  of  absolute  or  self  -  existence ;  it 
rather  expresses  what  is  or  will  he  historically,  and  the 
imperfect  tense  must  mean  not  /  am,  but  /  loill  he. 
In  Ex.  iii.  11-14  the  revelation  of  the  name  nin^  is  de- 
scribed— "  And  Moses  said  unto  God,  Who  am  I,  that  I 
should  go  unto  Pharaoh  ? "  And  God  said,  "  I  will  be 
with  thee,  ^^V  '"'''?*?  '3  "  .  .  .  And  Moses  said  unto  God, 
Behold,  when  I  come  unto  the  children  of  Israel,  and  shall 
say  unto  them,  The  God  of  your  fathers  hath  sent  me 
unto  you ;  and  they  shall  say  unto  me,  What  is  His  name  ? 
what  shall  I  say  unto  them  ?  And  God  said  unto  Moses, 
^''?^.  ""'f  ^  ^^.J}^.  :  and  he  said,  "  Thus  shalt  thou  say  unto  the 
children  of  Israel,  Ehyeh  hath  sent  me  unto  you."  That 
is,  God  when  speaking  of  Himself  is  n\ni<,  and  when  spoken 
of  nin\  In  the  time  of  Hosea  the  etymological  significa- 
tion of  Jehovah  was  still  present  to  men's  minds.  Hence 
He  says  :  "  I  will  not  be  to  you,  DD^  n\ix  xij  "  (chap.  i.  9)  : — 
"  ye  are  not  My  people,  and  I  am  not,  ^]J)f.,  to  you." 

It  seems  certain  that  in  Isa.  xl.  seq.  the  name  Jehovah 


PRONUNCIATION   OF   THE   NAME  47 

is  not  used  as  having  any  special  significance  etymologically, 
but  is  the  name  for  God  absolutely.  Ere  these  chapters 
were  written  the  idea  of  God  had  passed  through  various 
stages.  The  unity  of  God  had  become  a  formal  conception. 
It  had  been  discussed,  and  the  opposite  idea  of  there  being 
more  Gods  had  been  set  against  it.  *  Jehovah '  in  the 
prophet's  mouth  expresses  the  idea  of  the  one  true  God. 
And  is  not  mn^  (simply)  in  tliis  prophet  (Isa.  xl.  seq.)  =  to 
niN3V  m;n^^  or  nii^n  ^xn,  iNnb^,  i^M\^  in  the  earlier  prophets  ? 
It  is  not  an  ontological  name,  but  a  redemptive  one. 
It  does  not  describe  God  on  the  side  of  His  nature,  but 
on  that  of  His  saving  operations.  His  living  activity 
among  His  people,  and  His  influence  upon  them.  Yet  it 
is  probable  that  it  is  a  description  of  Jehovah  in  Himself, 
and  not  merely  as  He  will  manifest  Himself  to  Israel. 
"  I  will  be  that  I  will  be,"  expresses  the  sameness  of 
Jehovah,  His  constancy  —  His  being  ever  like  Himself. 
It  does  not  express  what  other  attributes  He  had, — these 
were  largely  suggested  by  the  fact  of  His  being  God ; 
it  ratlier  expresses  what  all  His  attributes  make  Him, 
— the  same  yesterday  and  to-day  and  for  ever,  the  true  in 
covenant  relation,  the  unchanging ;  hence  it  is  said,  "  I 
am  Jehovah,  I  change  not"  (Mai.  iiL   6). 

The  pronunciation  Jehovah  has  no  pretence  to  be  right. 
It  was  not  introduced  into  currency  till  the  time  of  the 
Eeformation,  about  1520.^  It  is  a  mongrel  word,  which 
has  arisen  from  uniting  the  vowels  of  one  word  with 
the  consonants  of  another — the  vowels  of  the  word  ""J^n* 
with  the  consonants  of  this  sacred  name.  This  name 
began,  for  whatever  reasons,  early  to  fall  into  disuse. 
Already  it  is  avoided  in  some  of  the  latest  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  as  Ecclesiastes.     In  the  second  Book  of  the 

^  When  vmvel  signs  were  invented  and  written  in  MSS.  (600-900  a.d.)  the 
practice,  when  one  word  was  substituted  for  another  in  reading,  was  to 
attach  the  vowels  of  tlie  word  to  be  snbstitutC'l  to  tlie  consonants  of  the 
original  word.  Tlius  the  vowels  oVadoady  were  attaclied  to  tlie  consonants 
ylivh.  In  1518  A.D.,  Petrus  Galatinus,  confessor  of  Leo  x.,  proposed  to  read 
the  vowels  and  consonants  as  one  word,  and  thus  arose  Yehoouh — Jehovah — 
y  requiring  to  be  spelled  with  e  instead  of  a. 


48  THE   THEOLOGY    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

Psalms  it  is  little   used,  and  it   is   evident   that   here   in 
many   cases   it   has   heen   removed  from   places   where   it 
stood,    and    the    name    Elohim    substituted    in    its    room 
(compare  Ps.  xiv.  with  Ps.  hii.).      It  is   probable,   as   we 
have   said,   tliat   a   superstitious   dread   was   the   cause   of 
the  disuse.      We  found  in  Amos  the  sentiment   that   the 
name  of  Jehovah  must  not  be  mentioned,  lest  He  should 
be  provoked  to  inflict  new  calamities.      In  Lev.  xxiv.   11 
wo   read   that    the    son    of    an    Israelitish    woman  whose 
father  was  an  Egyptian  blasphemed  the  name,  Dtpn  3J5»l,  as 
wo  translate  it.      But   in   ver.    16   the  Septuagint  already 
translates  it  as  if  =  lie  named  the  name  (ovofici^wv  to  ouofia)  ; 
and   the    exegesis    of    the    Jewish    commentators    on    the 
passage  is — "  he  who  names  the  name  nin''  shall  be  killed." 
This  superstitious  reverence  of    later  Judaism  appears  in 
many  ways ;  for  example,  in  the  Targums  instead  of  "  the 
Lord   said,"   it    is   always   "  the  word   of   the   Lord  said." 
Gradually  the   name  became   altogether  avoided,  and   the 
word  Adhonai,  Lord,  substituted  in  its  place.     According 
to  the  tradition,  the  pronunciation  of   the  name   lingered 
for  a  time  on  the  priests'  lips,  in  sacred  places  land  things, 
after   it  was  banished  from  the  mouths  of  cq^ion  men ; 
and  it  is  said  to  have  been  still  uttered  in  the  first  times 
of  the  Second  Temple  in  the  sanctuary  at  the  pronunciation 
of  the  blessing,  and  by  the  high   priest   on   the   Day   of 
Atonement.      But  from  the  time  of  the  death  of  Simon  the 
Just,  that  is,  from  the  first  half  of  the  third  century  B.C., 
it  was  exchanged  here  also  for  Adhonai,  as  had  long  been 
the  practice  outside  the  Temple.      The  Jews  maintain  that 
the  knowledge  of  the  true  pronunciation  has  been  quite 
lost  since  the  destruction   of  the  temple.     As  the  name 
Adhonai  was  substituted  for  it  by  the  Jewish  readers,  this 
passed   into   the   Septuagint  as   Kvpto^,  and   into   modern 
versions  as  Lord.     It  is  not  quite  certain  what  induced  the 
Jews  to  substitute  the  word  Lord  for  this  name ;  but  it  is 
almost  certain  that  no  inference  can  be  drawn  from  this  sub- 
stitution with  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  word  Jehovah. 
The  name  ultimately  became  =  the  true  God,  God  absolutely. 


ORIGIN    OF    NAME   JEHOVAH  49 

as  even  in  Isa.  xl.  ff.  Hence  Lord  was  a  good  sulistitute 
for  it.  Various  reasons  conspire  together  in  favour  of  the 
pronunciation  now  current  ^)^lj  Yaice  (variously  spelled 
^jahvd,  jahveli,  Yahvc,  Yahveh,  Yahwch,  etc.)  First,  the 
name  became  early  contracted.  The  common  contraction 
in;  at  the  end  of  names  points  to  1.^!  (as  ^n^'  =  •inc')^  which 
is  the  ordinary  form  of  contraction  such  words  undergo. 
Again,  the  ancient  transcription  into  Greek  is  eitlier  ta/3e 
or  lao),  which  express  respectively  the  long  or  the  con- 
tracted form.  Theodoret  transliterates  the  pronunciation 
of  the  Samaritans  (who  continued  to  speak  the  word)  la^e ; 
and  similar  transliterations  are  given  by  other  writers, 
e.g.  Clement  of  Alexandria.  The  traditional  etymology 
points  in  the  same  direction.^  According  to  this  deriva- 
tion the  word  is  third  singular  imperfect  of  the  verb  nvi 
in  -its  archaic  form — the  old  imperfect  of  which  would  be 
spelled  ^)\^\  equally  in  Kal  and  Hiphil.  We  may  assume 
that  this  is  the  true  pronunciation  of  the  word. 

As  to  its  origin  and  meaning,  it  may  be  assumed  on 
various  grounds  that  the  name,  although  it  somehow 
received  new  currency  and  significance  in  connection  with 
Israel  from  Moses,  is  far  older  than  his  time.  One  ground 
is  the  form  of  the  word.  It  seems  to  be  an  archaic  form 
in  which  v  fills  the  place  of  the  more  modern  y.  But 
certainly  in  Moses'  time  the  change  into  y  in  the  verb  iTTI 
had  already  long  taken  place.  In  the  cognate  languages 
the  V  remains,  and  the  name  must  belong  to  a  time  when 
Hebrew  had  not  dissociated  itself  so  far  from  its  sister 
tongues  as  it  had  done  by  the  time  when  Israel  had  be- 
come a  nation.      The  second  ground  is  the  general  repre- 

^  Various  etymologies  have  been  suggested.  Some  have  refen-ed  the  name 
to  the  Arab  havah,  to  breathe  or  bhno,  Yaliveh  being  the  god  who  is  heard  in 
the  storm,  whose  breath  is  the  wind,  and  the  thunder  his  voice.  Others 
think  oi  havah  in  the  sense  of  to  fall,  causative  to  fell,  and  take  Yahveh  to 
be  he  who  falls  (the  meteorite  or  Baitylion),  or  he  who  fells,  i.e.  prostrates 
Avith  his  thunderbolt, — again  the  Storm-god.  Others,  again,  refer  the  word 
to  havah  (archaic  form  of  hayah)  =  to  be,  in  the  causative  =  ^o  7nake  to  be  ; 
thus  Yahveh  would  l)e  he  who  brings  into  existence,  either  nature  or  events 
— the  Creator  or  the  providential  Ruler.  These  and  other  conjectures, 
however,  have  little  value. 

4 


50  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

scuLation  of  the  history,  according  to  which  the  name  is 
ancient.  Not  only  is  Jaliweh  the  same  God  as  the 
fathers  worshipped,  for  He  says  to  Moses,  "I  am  Jahweh  " 
— and  again,  "  I  am  the  God  of  thy  fathers "  ;  but  the 
history  declares  expressly  of  the  time  of  Enos,  "  tlien  began 
men  to  call  on  the  name  of  Jahweli  "  (Gen.  iv.  26);  and 
the  writers  of  the  history  put  the  name  into  the  mouths 
of  the  forefathers  of  Israel.  Added  to  this  is  the  fact 
that  the  name  appears  already  in  a  contracted  form  ^l  in 
the  Song  at  the  Red  Sea,  which  implies  some  considerable 
term  of  existence ;  and  that  it  enters  into  composition  in 
the  name  Jbchebed,  the  mother  of  Moses.  No  doubt  these 
inferences  as  to  the  antiquity  of  the  name  may  seem 
dill'iCult  to  reconcile  with  that  other  statement  made  in 
Exodus,  that  the  name  was  not  known  to  the  patriarchs : 
"  I  appeared  unto  the  fathers  as  El  Shaddai,  but  by  My 
name  Jaliweh  was  I  not  known  to  them."  But  this  can 
hardly  mean  that  the  name  was  unknown,  but  only  that 
its  real  significance  had  never  yet  been  experienced  by 
them,  and  that  now  God  would  manifest  Himself  fully 
in  the  character  expressed  by  this  name,  which  from 
henceforth  became  His  name  as  God  of  Israel. 

Some  scholars  have  endeavoured  to  make  it  probable 
that  the  name  was  learned  by  Moses  from  tlie  Midianite  or 
Kenite  tribes,  into  a  priestly  family  of  which  he  had 
married.  They  argue  that  the  name  was  used  by  these 
tribes  for  the  god  whom  they  worshipped,  and  whose  seat 
they  supposed  to  be  on  one  of  the  high  mountains  in  the 
desert,  wliere  they  roamed  and  pastured  their  flocks.  It 
was  wlien  Moses  had  led  tlie  flocks  of  his  father-in-law  to 
tlie  back  of  Horeb  that  Jahweh  appeared  to  him  in  a 
burning  Ijush.  It  was  to  the  same  locality  that  Moses  led 
the  people  to  worship  this  God,  and  to  receive  from  Him 
His  law.  It  is  not  at  all  certain  where  Sinai  or  Horeb 
lay  ;  the  traditional  modern  site  is  not  beyond  question. 
In  the  ancient  hymn,  the  IMessing  of  Moses,  in  Deut. 
XXX iii.,  it  is  said  :  "  Jehovah  came  from  Sinai,  and  rose  from 
Seir  unto   them;    He    shined  forth    from    Mount  Paran." 


THEORY    OF    MIDIANITE    DERIVATION  51 

Seir  is  Edoiu,  iiud  Mount  Taraii  is  very  considerably  noitli 
of  the  present  Sinai.  The  same  representation  occurs  in 
the  very  ancient  Song  of  Deborali :  "  Jahweh,  wlien  Thou 
wentest  forth  out  of  Seir,  when  Thou  niarcliedst  out  of  the 
lield  of  Edom  .  .  .  the  mountains  flowed  down  at  the 
presence  of  Jahweli,  even  yon  Sinai  at  the  presence  of 
Jahweh,  the  God  of  Israel"  (Judg.  v.  4,  5).  And  tliere 
are  other  similar  passages.  The  question  of  the  situation 
of  Sinai,  however,  is  of  little  consequence.  More  interest- 
ing is  the  question  whether  Sinai  was  thought  to  be  the 
local  seat  of  Jehovah,  and  whether  He  and  His  name 
were  known  to  the  tribe  to  which  Moses  was  related  by 
marriage.  Elijah,  the  great  upholder  of  Jehovah's  sole 
worship  in  Israel,  fled  from  Jezebel,  and  went  to  the 
mount  of  God.  But  the  prophet,  who  said :  "  If  Jeliovah 
be  God,  follow  Him ;  but  if  Baal,  then  follow  him " 
(1  Kings  xviii.  21),  would  scarcely  fancy  that  Jehovah 
had  any  particular  seat.  His  seeking  the  mount  of  God 
is  sufficiently  explained  by  the  historical  manifestation 
at  the  giving  of  the  Law.  Might  we  suppose  that  the 
fact  that  Moses  led  the  people  to  Sinai  was  sufficiently 
explained  by  Jehovah's  manifestation  to  himself  in  the 
bush  ?  Or  is  it  not  possible  that  at  that  time  Jehovah 
was  thought  to  have  a  connection  specially  with  this 
region.  If  He  had,  then  it  would  be  natural  that  the 
tribes  about  the  mountain  worshipped  Him.  When  the 
people  sought  leave  of  Pharaoh  to  go  and  sacrifice  to  their 
God,  Moses  said :  "  The  God  of  the  Hebrews  hath  met  with 
us ;  let  us  go,  we  pray  thee,  three  days'  journey  into  the 
wilderness,  and  sacrifice  to  Jehovah  our  God,  lest  He  fall 
upon  us  with  pestilence  "  (Ex.  v.  3).  This  might  seem  U) 
imply  that  Jehovah  was  specially  to  be  found  in  the 
wilderness.  As  the  Israelites  sojourned  in  the  south  of 
Palestine,  on  the  borders  of  the  desert,  before  going  down 
to  Egypt,  and  as  their  abode  when  in  Egypt  was  in  the 
east  of  the  country  bordering  still  on  the  desert,  it  might 
be  that  some  of  the  tribes  were  allied  with  them  in 
religion.      It  is,  of  course,  known  tliat  the  Kenites  attached 


52  THE    THEOLOGY    OF   THE    OLD   TESTAMENT 

themselves  to    Israel;    and    in  Judg.   iv.    11   the  Kenites 

appear    identified  with    tlie    Midianites,    the    relatives    of 

Moses :    for    it    is    said :    ''  Now    Heber    the    Kenite   had 

severed  himself  from  tlie   Kenites,  even  from   the  cliildren 

of  llohal),  the  father-in-law  of  Moses,  and  had  pitched  his 

tent  near  by  Kadesh."     Hebrew  tradition,  however,  nowhere 

sliows  any  trace  of  the  idea  tliat  Jehovah  was  worshipped 

by  any  tril)e  except  Israel  itself.      When  Hobab  came  to 

visit  Moses  and  the  camp  of  Israel,  and  Moses  narrated  to 

liim    the   wonders   done   by   Jehovah   in   Egypt,  and   His 

redemption  of  Israel,  he  exclaimed :  "  Now  know  I   that 

Jehovah   is  greater  than  all  gods"    (Ex.    xviii.    11).      In 

the  description,  too,  of  the   manifestation  of  Jehovah  on 

Mount  Sinai  at  the  giving  of  the  Law,  it  is  said  that  He 

had  come  down  upon  the  mountain ;  a  method  of  speaking 

which  does  not  imply  that  He  had  His  permanent  seat 

there.^ 

Mt  is  held  by  some  that  the  word  Jahurh,  or  a  similar  term,  occurs  in 
Assyrian.  Honimel  claims  to  have  found  a  Divine  name  /,  Ai,  or  Va,  in 
Western  Shemitic,  the  original,  he  thinks,  of  which  the  Hel)rew  mrr  was  a 
later  expansion.  The  Rev,  G.  Margoliouth  regards  the  Babylonian  lA,  EA, 
HEA,  and  the  Hebrew  Yah  as  foruiing  an  equation  {Contemporary  Revieio, 
Oct.  1898).  President  Warren,  of  Boston,  takes  substantially  the  same  view, 
only  refusing  to  identify,  as  Mr.  Margoliouth  does,  the  Babylonian  EA  with 
Sin,  the  Moon-god.  He  looks  upon  the  shorter  form  JH,  Yah,  as  the  West 
Shemitic  form  of  the  East  Shemitic  EA,  or  Proto- Shemitic  EA,  and  applies 
this  account  of  Jah,  Jahweh,  to  the  explanation  of  the  call  of  Moses  (the 
serpent  being  Ea's  familiar  symbol),  the  changing  of  water  into  blood,  the 
unlevitical  libation  of  water  to  Jeliovah  mentioned  in  1  Sam.  vii.  6,  the  signs 
asked  by  Gideon  (Judg.  vi.  36-40),  the  healing  of  the  waters  of  Marah,  the 
production  of  water  from  the  smitten  rock,  etc.  {Methodist  Review,  January 
1902  ;  also  a  paper  by  Dr.  Hans  Spoer  in  the  American  Journal  of  Semitic 
Lani/uages  arid  Literatures,  xviii.  1).  Carrying  out  to  its  utmost  length 
the  disposition,  represented  by  Wiuckler,  Radau,  and  others,  to  regard  Israel 
as  dcpcn<lent  for  most  things  on  Babylonian  civilisation  and  religion.  Professor 
Friedrich  Delitzsch  now  claims  that  even  the  idea  of  God  is  Babylonian, 
and  revives  the  theory  that  El  originally  expressed  the  conception  of  goal. 
He  thinks  that  this  '  goal '  was  held  to  be  one,  and  asserts  that  he  finds 
even  the  Divine  name  Yahwch,  and  the  phrase  "  Yahweh  is  God,"  in  early 
Babylonian  texts  (see  his  Babel  und  Bihel).  He  reads  the  words  in  question 
as  la-ah-vc-ilu,  Ja-hu-iim-ihc,  and  takes  the  rendering  to  be  "Jahweh  is 
Goil."  But  the  translations  are  of  the  most  doubtful  kind.  See  Gunkel's 
Isriwl  und  Balnjlonieii,  Koberle's  Bat/ylouische  Cultar  und  bihlische  Beligion, 
Konig's  Bibel  und  Babel,    Kittel's  JJer  Babcl-Bibd-Strcit  und  die  Ojj'en- 


ETYMOLOGY    OF    THE    NAME  56 

In  an  interesting  essay  on  tlie  name,  Baudissin  proves, 
I  think,  conclusively  these  two  points :  first,  that  the 
many  forms  and  examples  of  the  name  to  he  found  in 
Greek,  on  amulets  and  in  otlier  inscriptions,  arc  all  deriv^- 
ahle  from  tlie  word  as  pronounced  Yahweli,  i.e.  as  used 
among  the  Jewisli  people ;  and  second,  tliat  there  is  no 
trace  of  the  term  as  a  name  for  God  among  otlier  Sliemitic 
speaking  nations.^  It  is  often  found  used  hy  such  nations, 
but  always  seems  derived  from  Israel.  This  would  seem  to 
imply  tliat  the  name  is  a  peculiar  heritage  of  Israel ;  thougli 
this  would  not  in  any  way  interfere  with  the  antiquity 
of  the  name,  nor  with  its  derivation  from  a  root  common 
to  all  the  Shemitic  languages.  The  word  amlak  nsed  for 
God  in  Ethiopic  is  peculiar  to  this  division  of  the  Shemitic 
races  ;  but  it  may  probably  be  very  ancient,  and  is  certainly 
formed  from  a  root  common  to  them  all.  But  since  the 
name  is  peculiar  to  Israel,  we  are  thrown  entirely  upon 
what  information  we  can  glean  from  statements  made  in 
the  Old  Testament  regarding  its  meaning,  and  upon  our 
own  conjectures  from  the  sense  of  the  root  and  the  form 
of  the  word. 

As  to  the  fact  that  the  Old  Testament  connects  the 
name  with  the  verb  nM  to  be,  it  is  extremely  difficult  to 
say  in  such  cases  of  apparent  etymologising  whether  there 
be  a  real  derivation  or  only  a  reference  by  way  of  play  to 
a  root  of  similar  sound.  Thus  Eve  called  her  son  Tp.,  for 
she  said,  "  I  have  gotten  C^^^i^)  a  man  from  the  Lord " 
(Gen.  iv.  1).  The  word  pp  has  a  similar  sound,  but 
probably  a  different  sense  from  n^p.  The  daughter  of 
Pharaoh  called  the  child  whom  she  rescued  Moshe — 
"  because  I  have  drawn  him  out  of  the  water,  ''riK^p " 
(Ex.  ii.  10);  but  the  name  Moses  is  probably  purely 
Egyptian,  and  the  reference  to  the  Hebrew  verb  a  mere 
play.     The  same  may  certainly  be  tlie  case  with  the  word 

harungsfrage,  Leimdort'er's  Drr  Jhivh-Fund  von  Babel  in  der  Bihel,  eto.  etc. 
On  tlie  Tetragrammaton,  see  Driver  in  Stadia  Bihlica,  188.'»  ;  T.  Tyler  in  the 
Jeirish  Quarterly  Review,  July  1901,  etc. — Ei). 

^  See  his  Sladien  zur  Semilisdceit  licligionsyeschic/Ue. — Ei>. 


54  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

-rabweh ;  its  connection  witli  the  verb  n^n  in  its  ordinary 
sense  may  be  merely  a  play.  Still,  even  if  this  were  so, 
we  have  in  this  play,  if  not  certainty  as  to  the  origin  of 
tlie  name,  an  indication  of  what  it  meant.  At  the  time 
when  this  etymology  arose  and  was  current,  the  meaning  of 
tlie  name  Jahweh  to  Israel  could  be  expressed  by  the  im- 
perfect of  the  verb  -\-|,  to  he — the  modern  n-^ns,  or  at  least 
the  fuller  formula  '^*  ■'t^•x  'i<  was  felt  to  give  the  signiiica- 
tion  of  the  ancient  Jahweh.  We  can  ..o  vjiertain,  of 
course,  when  the  passage  in  Exodus  was  written.  But 
even  if  in  its  written  form  it  is  the  product  of  a  much 
later  age,  it  most  probably  expresses  an  old  historical 
tradition.  Much  of  the  Pentateuch  may  be  in  its  present 
form  of  comparatively  late  d  'e,  and  not  unnaturally  a 
writer  living  in  a  late  age  me^  mix  up  some  of  his  own 
conceptions  with  those  of  a  former  time,  and  colour  his 
delineations  of  the  past  with  ideas  that  belong  to  his  own 
time.  But  wholesale  fabrications  of  a  past  history  from 
the  point  of  view  of  a  more  modern  age  are  very  improb- 
al)le.  And  this  improbability  is  indefinitely  heightened  in 
the  domain  of  ancient  Shemitic  literature. 

To  Moses  the  name  Jahweh,  which  he  elevated  into 
such  prominence,  must  have  had  a  meaning  of  its  own, 
and  he  is  just  as  likely  to  have  connected  that  ancient 
name  witb  the  verb  n\T  as  the  prophet  Hosea,  who  certainly 
does  so.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  Old  Testament  con- 
nects the  name  with  the  verb  nM  in  its  modern  sense. 
The  imperfect  Qal  of  the  verb  n^n,  as  used  in  the  times 
of  Moses  and  Hosea,  expresses  the  meaning  of  Jahweh. 
It  is  certainly  possible  that  the  ancient  name  Jahweh  is 
derived  from  this  verb  in  its  more  ancient  and  primary 
sense.  This  sense  is  probably  to  fall ;  and  some,  as  we 
liave  said,  have  supposed  the  name  nin"*  to  be  a  Hiphil 
from  this,  and  to  mean  the  feller,  the  prostrator — a  name 
wliicli  would  be  allied  to  ^''^^^^  and  '"n>!'  (if  the  last  were 
derived  fiom  *nL**,  wliicli  is  not  likely) ;  just  as  others  have 
supposed  it  to  be  a  Hii)]iil,  in  tlie  sense  of  to  cause  to  be, 
and  meaning  the  Creator.     But  such  inquiries  lie  without 


MEANING    NOT    iMETAPHYSICAL  55 

the  Old  Testament  horizon.  To  the  Israehles  of  history 
the  covenant  name  Jahweh  has  a  meaning  whicli  may  bo 
expressed  by  the  first  singular  imperfect  Qal  of  riM,  lo  be. 
Now,  huo  things  must  be  premised  about  this  verb.  First, 
the  imperfect  of  such  a  stative  verb  as  nM  must  be  taken 
in  the  sense  of  a  future.  I  do  not  think  there  is  in  the 
Hebrew  Bible  a  case  of  the  imperfect  of  this  verb  having 
the  sense  ^^  ^he  English  present.  This  is  expressed  by  the 
perfect.  "  \nb  ,.  :^d  means  to  fall,  fall  out,  become  ;  hence 
its  perfect  is  equivalent  to  to  be.  The  imperfect  must  be 
rendered,  /  tvill  be.  Second,  riTi  does  not  mean  to  be 
essentially,  but  to  he  phe7iomenally ;  it  is  not  elvai,  but 
rylveaOaL  It  cannot  be  used  ordinarily  to  express  '  being ' 
in  the  sense  of  existence.  ..'Now  these  two  facts  regarding 
n\n  exclude  a  large  numberaof  conjectures  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  Jahweh.  In  the  first  place,  the  translation  /  am  is 
doubly  false  :'tL3  tense  as  wrong,  being  present;  and  the 
idea  is  wrong,  because  am  is  used  in  the  sense  of  essential 
existence.  All  those  interpretations  which  proceed  upon 
the  supposition  that  the  word  is  a  name  of  God  as  the 
self -existent,  the  absolute,  of  which  the  Septuagint's  o  mv 
is  the  most  conspicuous  illustration,  must  be  set  aside. 
Apart  from  the  fact  that  such  abstract  conceptions  are 
quite  out  of  keeping  with  the  simplicity  and  concreteness 
of  Oriental  thought,  especially  in  the  most  early  times, 
the  nature  of  the  verb  and  the  tense  peremptorily  forbid 
them. 

Second,  the  translation  /  luill  be,  or  /  will  be  what 
I  will  be,  while  rioht  as  to  tense,  must  be  guarded  also 
against  having  a  metaphysical  sense  imported  into  the 
words  will  be.  Some  have  supposed  that  the  expression 
denoted  the  eternity  of  God,  or  the  self  -  consistence  of 
God,  or  His  absolute  freedom  and  His  inviolability  from 
all  sides  of  the  creature  universe ;  but  these  constructions 
also  put  a  sense  upon  nM  which  it  cannot  bear.  The 
expression  /  ivill  be  is  a  historical  formula ;  it  refers,  not 
to  what  God  will  be  in  Himself ;  it  is  no  predication 
regarding   His   nature,   but   one   regarding   what   He   will 


56  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

approve  Himself  to  oUicrs,  re-.-iidiiiL;-  wliat  Ho  will  sliow 
Himself  to  be  to  those  iu  covenant  with  Him.  The  name  is 
not  a  name  like  Elohim,  which  expresses  God  on  the  side  of 
His  being,  as  essential,  manifold  power  ;  it  is  a  word  that 
expresses  rather  relation — Elohim  in  relation  to  Israel  is 
Jahweh.  Tn  this  respect  the  word  has  almost  the  same 
signification  as  the  term  ^"'"nij  hohj  \  the  "fiJ"  '\>  and  Jahweh 
are  one.  It  is  in  this  sense  that  Hosea  says  to  Israel : 
U^h  'n  n^j  /  vAll  not  he  to  yon ;  but  I  "  will  save  them  by 
the  Lord  their  God"  ('"li^'?) — i.e.  as  Jahweh  their  God 
(i.   7,  9). 

In  Exodus  the  formula  appears  in  two  shapes — the 
simple  n^nx,  /  ivill  he,  and  the  larger  't^  irx  'n,  /  will  he 
that  I  wi/l  he.  But  it  is  evident  that  the  lesser  formula  is 
a  full  expression  of  the  name — "say  unto  the  children  of 
Israel  that  'n  hath  sent  me  unto  you."  The  name  is,  /  ivill 
he.  Thus  it  is  eciuivalent  almost  to  6  ip')(o^evo<; — he  who  is 
to  come ;  it  premises  God,  a  God  known ;  it  promises  His 
fuller  manifestation,  His  ever  closer  nearness,  His  clearer 
revelation  of  His  glory.  And  the  burden  of  all  the  Old 
Testament  prophets  is :  The  Lord  shall  come : — "  Say 
unto  the  cities  of  Judah,  Behold  your  God  1  Behold,  the 
Lord  God  will  come  with  strong  hand ; "  "  the  glory  of  the 
Lord  shall  be  revealed,  and  all  flesh  shall  see  it  together " 
(Isa.  xl.  9,  5).  /  luill  he,  or,  /  will  he  it]  but  what  He 
will  be  has  to  be  filled  up  by  a  consciousness  of  God 
already  existing,  and  always  receiving  from  every  new 
manifestation  of  Him  new  contents.  But  it  is  clear  that 
if  n-nwS  be  really  the  name,  then  the  second  part  of  the 
longer  fornuda  's  -itJ\s,  2ohat  I  will  he,  is  unimportant,  and 
cannot  sustain  the  emphasis  of  the  proposition.  It  can 
do  nothing  more  than  give  body  to  the  first  /  will  he. 
It  may  mean  /  will  he,  I  who  will  he.  Or  if  it  mean  "  I 
will  be  what  I  will  be,"  it  resembles  the  expression  in 
Ex.  xxxiii.  9,  "  I  will  have  mercy  on  whom  I  will  have 
mercy,"  the  meaning  of  which  would  appear  better  if  it 
were  read,  "  On  whom  I  will  have  mercy,  I  will  have 
mercy  "  ;  I  will  have  mercy  fully,  absolutely.     The  idea  of 


y 


THE    FORMULA    IN    EXODUS  57 

selection  scarcely  lies  in  the  formula ;  it  is  ratlier  tlie 
strong  emphatic  aflirmation,  /  will  have  mercy. 

It  may  occur  to  one  that  such  a  sense  of  Jahweh  can 
hardly  be  its  primary  one.  But  we  must  recall  results 
already  readied,  e.g.  that  the  name  is  purely  Israelitish  ; 
that  Israel  had  a  name  for  God  in  general,  namely,  Elohim, 
common  to  it  and  tlie  other  Shemitic  peoples  ;  and  that 
what  it  now  needed  was  not  a  new  name  for  God  in  His 
nature  or  being,  but  a  name  expressive  of  His  new  relation 
to  itself.  Israel  did  not  need  to  be  instructed  that  there 
was  a  God,  or  that  He  was  all-powerful.  It  needed  to 
know  that  He  had  entered  into  positive  covenant  relations 
with  itself  ;  that  He  was  present  always  in  Israel ;  that  the 
whole  wealth  of  His  being — of  what  He  was,  He  had  pro- 
mised to  reveal,  and  to  give  to  His  chosen  people.  Elohim 
says  to  Israel  D^b  n'»nj< ;  and  in  this  relation  He  is  nin\ 
He  who  will  he  is  already  known  ;  what  He  will  be  is  not 
expressed ;  it  is  a  great  inexpressible  silence — contents  im- 
measurable, blessing  unspeakable — in  a  word,  D^n^N. 

It  is  certainly  possible  that  another  construction  may 
be  put  upon  the  words,  which,  though  somewhat  different, 
leaves  the  truth  expressed  very  much  the  same.  I  will  he 
may  express  something  like  uniformity  in  God,  the  constant 
sameness  of  God  in  His  relation  to  Israel.  This  gives  a 
sense  not  unlike  the  translation  /  am,  namely,  that  of  the 
unchanging  nature  of  God.  But  in  the  one  case,  in  the 
translation  /  am,  the  reference  is  more  to  God's  essential 
being,  in  the  other  more  to  His  unvarying  relation  to 
Israel.  This  latter  is  far  more  likely,  in  view  of  the 
ancient  manner  of  speaking,  especially  among  Eastern 
nations,  and  it  is  far  more  pertinent  in  the  circumstances. 
The  words  express  not  that  Israel  had  God  among  them, 
one  who  was  unchangeable,  self-existent  in  His  nature, 
but  rather  what  kind  of  God  they  had — one  constant, 
faithful,  ever  the  same,  in  whom  they  could  trust,  to 
whom  they  could  flee,  who  was  their  dwelling-place  in  all 
generations.  And  hence  a  prophet  says,  "  I  am  Jehovah ; 
1  change  not "  (Mai.  iii.  6).     At  all  events  this  is  to  be 


58    THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

held  fast,  that  the  name  expresses  not  God's  essential  nature, 
hut  His  rehition  to  Israel  as  the  (Jod  of  the  covenant. 

But  speculations  on  the  meaning  of  this  name  are  less 
fruitful  than  observation  of  wliat  Scripture  says  in  regard 
to  lliin.  It  is  from  this  we  can  gather  the  ideas  enter- 
tained by  the  people. 

6.  Jehovah  the  God  of  Israel. 

A  question  of  great  interest  now  arises,  What  is  in- 
volved in  saying  that  Jehovah  was  the  God  of  Israel  ? 
How  much  meaning  in  relation,  say,  to  the  general  idea 
of  the  absolute  unity  of  God,  or  to  Monotheism,  may  we 
suppose  to  lie  in  the  phrase  ? 

We  have  said  that  Jahweh  and  Elohim  are  not  names 
parallel ;  Jahweh  is  Elohim  in  relation  to  Israel,  Jahweh 
is  Elohim  saying  nMX.  And  Elohim  saying  n'^nx  is  Elohim 
of  Israel.  But  thus  Jahweh  became  the  name  of  the 
Elohim  of  Israel — or  rather  of  Elohim  in  Israel.  This  is 
certainly  the  way  of  thinking  among  the  great  prophets 
of  the  eighth  and  ninth  centuries  before  Christ.  Jahweh 
is  not  to  them  a  God  among  other  gods,  neither  is  Jahweh 
God  simply.  He  is  God  in  Israel — God  saying  /  loill  he, 
God  in  the  act  of  unveiling  His  face  more  and  more,  in 
tlie  act  of  communicating  the  riches  of  Himself  more 
and  more,  in  the  act  of  pouring  out  all  His  contents  into 
the  life  of  Israel ;  or  God  as  the  constant  One,  the 
same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for  ever. 

It  is  not  easy  to  state  with  certainty  wliat  is  included 
in  the  expression  "Jahweh,  God  of  Israel,"  and  excluded 
by  it.  In  order  to  estimate  it  fairly,  we  have  to  take  into 
account  not  merely  the  form  o '  expression,  but  the  facts  of 
history  bearing  on  its  meaning,  and  the  conduct  of  those 
who  professed  this  belief.  But  in  taking  into  account 
history,  a  multitude  of  considerations  have  to  be  attended 
to.  Israel  was  a  numerous  people;  its  past  history  had 
made  it  not  a  liomogeneous,  but  a  composite  nation. 
Narratives,  the  veracity  of   which  w^e  have  no  reason  to 


JEHOVAH    GOD    OF    ISRAEL  59 

doubt,  represent  the  jjoople  in  tlio  wilderness  as  a  mixed 
multitude.  Egyptian  elements  no  doulit  entered  to  some 
extent  into  the  nation.  Tlien  it  must  liave  gathered  foreign 
though  kindred  elements  from  the  Shemitic  tribes  whom  it 
encountered  in  the  wilderness.  The  Kenites,  who  play  an 
important  part  in  Israel's  history,  attached  themselves  to  it 
there.  Moreover,  it  is  plain  that  Israel  on  entering  Canaan 
neither  put  to  the  sword  nor  dispossessed  in  any  great 
measure  the  native  races,  but  merely  subjected  them  to 
tribute,  and  ultimately  absorbed  them  into  itself.  It  is 
evident  that  into  the  Israelitish  nation  which  history  deals 
with,  elements  of  the  most  diverse  kinds  entered,  and  that 
classes  existed  differing  very  widely  from  one  another  in 
culture  and  morals.  When  it  is  asked,  therefore,  what  is 
meant  by  saying  "  Jahweh  was  God  of  Israel,"  the  answer 
may  be  that  it  meant  very  different  things  among  different 
classes.  And  history  may  bring  too  often  to  light  this 
unfortunate  divergence.  But  manifestly  we  ouglit  to  ask, 
What  did  it  mean  in  the  minds  of  those  who  were  the 
religious  leaders  of  the  people,  such  as  Moses,  and  Samuel, 
and  David,  and  the  like  ? 

Now  it  is  plain,  first  of  all,  that  it  meant  that  Israel 
was  to  worship  no  other  God.  The  first  commandment 
is,  "  I  am  Jaliweh ;  thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  in  My 
presence."  Israel's  worship  was  confined  to  one  God — 
to  God  under  one  name,  Jahweh.  Not  only  the  first 
commandment,  but  every  element  in  the  constitution  bore 
this  meaning.  The  expression  and  idea  of  a  covenant  had 
this  in  view — it  made  the  people  Jahweh's.  And  so  was 
it  with  all  the  separate  provisions  of  the  covenant.  The 
Sabbath,  which  was  but  an  intensification  of  the  idea  that 
Israel's  whole  life  was  dedicated  ;  the  offering  of  the  first- 
born, which  meant  the  nation  in  its  strength  (implying  all 
its  increase) ;  the  first-fruits  of  the  harvest,  and  much  else, 
particularly  the  appearing  of  all  the  males  before  Jahweh 
three  times  a  year, — all  these  things  were  but  expressions 
of  the  fundamental  idea  that  Israel  was  Jahweh's — His 
n?iD  or  peculiar  possession,  His  alone. 


60  THE    THEOLOGY    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

r.ut  it  l»t'(^()incs  a  (lucstion,  Did  this  particularism 
aiHoiint  to  Mniiothoisiii?  Was  Jaliweli,  whom  alone  Israel 
worshipped,  God  alone  ?  Such  a  question  can  be  answered 
only  by  an  induction  of  the  attributes  of  Jahweh  and  of 
the  facts  of  history.  And  this  is  not  easy  to  make. 
On  tlie  one  hand,  it  is  known  that  each  separate  people 
of  auti(piity  had  its  national  god,  and  that  one  god 
worshipped  did  not  necessjirily  imply  one  god  believed  in. 
The  separate  peoples,  while  each  worshipping  its  own 
god,  did  not  deny  the  existence  of  the  gods  of  their 
neighbours.  And  in  all  likelihood  among  Israel  very 
many  stood  on  no  higher  platform  than  this  —  Jahweh 
was  God  of  Israel;  but  Chemosh  was  god  of  Ammon. 
It  is  scarcely  possible  to  explain  Israel's  history  and  the 
persistent  falls  into  idolatry  of  a  large  part  of  the  nation, 
unless  we  start  with  some  such  supposition  as  this — that 
to  a  great  number  in  the  nation  Jahweh  was  merely  the 
national  God.  If  any  higher  idea  was  laid  before  them, 
they  had  not  been  able  with  any  depth  or  endurance  to 
take  it  in.  But  the  question  is,  Was  it  laid  before  them 
by  Moses  and  the  founders  of  the  Theocracy  ?  The  first 
commandment  contents  itself  with  prohibiting  Israel  from 
serving  a  plurality  of  gods ;  it  does  not  in  words  rise  to 
the  affirmation  of  Monotheism.  But  in  like  manner  the 
seventh  prohibits  merely  Israel  from  committing  adultery, 
and  the  sixth  from  murder ;  they  contain  no  hint  that 
these  injunctions  have  a  universal  bearing,  and  are  funda- 
mental laws  of  human  well-being.  The  laws  are  all  cast 
into  the  form  of  particular  prohibitions.  But  who  can 
doubt  that  the  comprehensive  mind  which  ministered  to 
Israel  those  profound  abstractions  concerning  purity  and 
regard  for  life  and  truth  and  respect  for  property,  per- 
ceived that  they  expressed  the  fundamental  principles  of 
human  society  ?  And  is  it  supposable  that  with  such 
insight  into  morality  he  stood  on  so  low  a  platform  in 
religion  as  to  rise  no  higher  than  national  particularism  ? 

Of  course,  we  must  take  such  evidence  as  we  have, 
and  must  not  judge  antiquity  and  the  East  by  our  modern 


PREPARATIONS   FOR    MONOTHEISM  61 

ideas  in  Uio  West.  A  Sliomilic  miiid  would  rise  to  ilio 
idea  of  loiity  pr()l>al)ly  very  gradually,  and  tlnougli  aUaeli- 
ing  attributes  to  his  national  god  which  excluded  all  rivals. 
If  we  look  down  the  Decalogue  a  little  further,  we  come 
in  the  fourth  conmiandnient  to  a  reniaikable  statement  re- 
garding Jahweh  : — "  In  six  days  Jahwch  made  the,  heavens 
and  the  earth."  Jahweh,  God  of  Israel,  is  Creator  of  the 
universe.  He  who  wrote  this  sentence  was  certainly  a 
virtual  monotheist.  Perhaps  the  thought  did  not  rise  in 
his  mind  as  it  does  in  ours,  that  the  existence  of  such  a 
Being  excluded  all  other  beings  who  might  be  called 
Elohim.  But  one  with  such  a  practical  faith  stood  to 
Jahweh  much  as  believers  in  the  unity  of  God  stand  to 
Him  now.  And  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  all  the  leadiner 
minds  in  Israel,  and  many  of  the  people,  had  from  the 
beginning  reached  this  high  platform. 

Perhaps  we  may  observe  even  in  the  patriarchal  age 
a  tendency  in  an  upward  direction  and  an  advance  upon 
the  stage  indicated  by  the  names  which  were  common  to 
Israel  and  the  kindred  races  at  the  beginning.  While  the 
family  of  Abraham  maintained  the  common  name  Elohim 
for  God,  as  expressing  the  general  idea,  and  M,  used  also 
as  a  personal  name,  we  notice  what  might  be  called  a 
potentiation  of  the  latter  name,  a  tendency  to  unite  it  with 
epithets  which  both  elevate  the  conception  expressed  by  it, 
and  distinguish  the  Being  whom  the  patriarchs  called  M 
from  others  who  might  be  so  named.  Such  names  are. 
El  Ely  on,  "  God  most  High  "  ;  El  Hai,  "  the  living  God  "  ; 
El  Shaddai,  "  God  Almighty,"  or  "  God  of  overpowering 
might."  Even  in  such  names  as  Adun,  Baal,  El,  there  is 
already  a  step  made  towards  Monotheism,  the  Being  named 
God  has  been  abstracted  from  nature.  He  is  no  more  the 
mere  phenomenon,  nor  even  the  power  in  the  phenomenon. 
He  is  the  power  above  the  phenomenon.  And  the  parti- 
cularism, as  it  is  called,  of  the  Shemitic  peoples,  or  their 
monolatry,  which  is  so  peculiar  to  them  as  distinguished 
from  the  Western  nations,  that  is,  the  fact  that  they  had 
each  a  national  or  tribal  god,  whom  they  worshipped  alone 


G2  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

jis  tluMr  L^'od,  witlidut,  il  may  1)C,  ralliii.L;-  in  (jnestion  the 
existence  uf  ullier  triltal  ,<;(uls  wlioni  tlieir  nci,L;libours 
wor.sliipiKMl,  or  imniiring  wlietlier  oilier  gods  than  their 
own  existeil  or  not, — this  pecuharity,  if  it  cannot  be  called 
Monotheism,  forms  at  last  a  high  vantage  ground  from 
which  a  march  towards  Monotheism  may  commence.  And 
it  is  probable  that  we  see  in  the  patriarchal  names  just 
referred  to,  particularly  in  El  Shaddai,  the  advance  in  the 
family  of  Abraham  towards  both  the  unity  and  the  spiritu- 
ahty  of  God.  He  who  called  God  £Jl  Shaddai,  and 
worshipped  Him  as  the  'Almighty,'  might  not  have  the 
abstract  or  general  conception  in  his  mind  that  He  was 
the  only  powerful  Being  existing.  But,  at  least  to  him 
He  was  the  supreme  power  in  heaven  and  in  earth,  and  He 
had  given  him  His  fellowship,  and  w^as  condescending  to 
guide  his  life.  And  when  one  named  the  Being  whom  he 
served  the  eternal  God,  or  the  liviiig  God,  though  he  might 
not  have  present  before  his  mind  the  general  conception  of 
what  we  call  the  sinrituality  of  God,  yet  practically  the 
effect  must  have  been  much  the  same.  For  He  who  existed 
from  eternity  and  had  life  in  Himself  could  not  be  part 
of  tliat  material  world  everywhere  subject  to  change,  nor 
could  He  exist  in  flesh  which  decayed. 

The  manner  of  thinking  among  these  ancient  saints  of 
God  was  very  different  from  ours.  We  are  the  heirs  of 
all  the  ages.  There  lie  behind  us  centuries  of  speculation 
regarding  God ;  and  we  have  reached  an  abstract  and 
general  conception  of  God  to  which,  if  there  be  any  actual 
God,  He  must  correspond.  But  these  men  were  pursuing 
the  opposite  course.  They  started  from  the  assurance  of 
the  existence  of  a  Being  whom  they  named  God,  whom 
they  considered  a  person  in  close  relation  with  their  life ; 
and  their  general  thoughts  of  Him  were  few,  and  only  rose 
to  their  mind  gradually,  one  after  another,  as  their  life  and 
history  suggested  them.  And  the  history  of  the  people  of 
God  enables  us  to  observe  how  these  great  thoughts  of 
what  God  was  rose  like  stars,  one  in  succession  to  another, 
upon  their  liorizou  ;  thoughts  which  we,  who  have  inherited 


A   PRACTICAL    MONOTHEISM  63 

the  menial  riches  of  these  great  men,  now  are  al)lc  to  unite 
together  into  one  great  constellation  and  call  it  God. 

The  religion  of  Israel  was  practical,  not  speculative ; 
and  wliile  a  practical  Mouotlieisni  prevailed,  and  gave  rise 
to  all  that  profound  religious  life  which  we  see  in  sucli 
men  as  Moses  and  Samuel  and  David  and  the  pi'ophets,  it 
perhaps  needed  that  internal  conflict  which  arose  through 
the  slowness  of  the  popular  mind,  and  the  degradation 
of  the  popular  morals  arising  from  ahsorbing  the  native 
Canaanite,  to  bring  into  speculative  clearness  the  doctrines 
of  Monotheism  and  Spirituality.  The  whole  history  of 
Israel  is  filled  with  this  internal  conflict  between  the 
strict  worshippers  of  Jahweh  and  those  who  showed  a 
leaning  to  other  gods.  And  while  all  the  leading  minds 
held,  and  when  they  were  writers  expressed,  conceptions  of 
Jahweh  which  to  our  minds  would  have  excluded  the 
existence  of  all  else  named  God,  it  is  not  perhaps  till 
the  age  of  Jeremiah  that  the  speculative  truth  is  clearly 
announced  that  there  is  no  God  but  Jahweh.  I  exclude 
from  consideration  here  the  Book  of  Deuterono^ny,  the  age 
of  which  is  contested. 

In  estimating  evidence  on  this  question,  however,  we 
must  always  take  the  state  of  thought  in  those  ages  into 
account,  and  the  condition  of  religion  among  the  neighbour- 
ing peoples.  Much  is  said  in  Scripture  which  reflects  not 
the  point  of  view  of  Israel,  but  that  of  the  heathen  peoples 
about,  and  the  facts  of  religious  practice  in  the  world  at 
the  time.  For  example,  in  the  hymn  sung  at  the  Eed  Sea 
it  is  said :  "  Who  is  like  unto  Thee,  0  Jahweh,  among 
the  gods  ?  who  is  like  Thee,  glorious  in  holiness,  fearful 
in  praises,  doing  wonders?"  (Ex.  xv.  11).  There  it  is 
certainly  said,  as  elsewhere,  of  Israel's  God,  that  He  is 
incomparable.  But  it  seems  admitted  that  though  supreme, 
He  is  just  one  God  among  others.  Yet  this  last  inference 
might  be  very  mistaken.  The  language  reposes  upon  the 
fact  that  the  heathen  nations  had  gods  whom  they  wor- 
shipped, and  is  bascMl  merely  upon  tlie  genei-al  religious 
conditions   of    the    time.       In   a   late   Psalm    (Bs.    xcvii.), 


64  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TE.STAMENT 

certainly  written  after  the  expression  of  a  theoretical 
Monotheism  by  such  prophets  as  Jeremiah  and  the  Second 
Isaiali,  we  read  :  "  Great  is  Jaliweh  ; — He  is  to  be  feared 
above  all  gods."  And  had  we  no  more  we  might  suppose 
the  autlior  to  admit  the  existence  of  other  objects  of 
worship  along  with  Jahwch,  aUliough  he  nn'ght  put  them  on 
a  meaner  level.  But  he  immediately  adds :  "  For  all  the 
gods  of  the  nations  are  vanities," — ^yy^.,  non-existences  ; 
"  Init  Jahweh  made  the  heavens."  And  ])avid,  who  was 
certainly  a  monotheist,  uses  similar  phraseology  when  he 
identities  being  banished  from  the  land  of  Israel  with 
serving  other  gods  (1  Sam.  xxvi.  19).  Such  language 
arises  from  the  religious  conditions  of  the  age,  and  we 
cannot  draw  any  conclusions  from  it  as  to  the  actual 
views  of  the  persons  in  Israel  using  it.  We  ourselves 
still  speak  of  the  gods  of  the  heathen,  and  our  classical 
education  makes  us  many  times  refer  to  them  as  actual 
entities.  But  this  arises  from  identifying  ourselves  in 
thought  with  the  ancients  ;  we  do  not,  when  the  matter 
is  seriously  before  our  minds,  give  any  weight  to  the 
language  we  ourselves  employ.  A  great  deal  too  much 
weight  has  been  attached  by  writers  like  Kuenen  and 
others,  whose  object  is  to  demonstrate  a  progressive  ad- 
vance from  a  mere  national  particularism  to  a  true 
Monotheism,  to  such  expressions  as  those  which  we  have 
been  considering.  Such  formulas  may  mean  much  or 
little,  according  to  the  position  of  the  persons  in  whose 
mouths  they  occur  ;  and  certainly  much  more  discrimination 
needs  to  be  practised  in  estimating  their  value  than  is  done 
by  Kuenen. 

This  class  of  writers  admit  that  from  the  age  of 
Jeremiah  a  theoretical  Monotheism  prevailed  in  Israel. 
And  this  may  be  held  as  conceded  on  all  hands.  Two 
({uestions,  however,  arise  in  regard  to  this  theoretical  Mono- 
theism. First,  was  it  a  view  held  by  the  older  prophets, 
by  the  propliets  from  the  beginning,  or  may  we  observe 
the  rise  of  the  view  among  the  propliets  whose  writings  we 
possess  ?     And  second,  suppose  we  find  that  it  was  virtually 


THE    HEATHEN    GODS  65 

the  view  of  the  prophets  from  the  beginning,  thougli  tliey 
may  not  have  occasion  to  express  the  view  in  a  verj 
general  way,  being  only  interested  on  insisting  on  a 
practical  IMonotheism  in  Israel,  was  it  the  view  current 
in  Israel  from  the  foundation  of  the  connnonwealtli,  i.e. 
from  the  Exodus  ? 

In  tlie  age  of  Jeremiah  such  things  are  said  of  tlic 
lieathen  gods  as  leave  us  in  no  doubt  that  tlie  prophets 
liad  reached  the  idea  of  a  theoretical  Monotheism;  for, 
e.[/.,  these  gods  are  named  '  notliing,'  H^^p,  Isa.  xli.  24 ; 
'chaos,'  5inpi,  Isa.  xli.  29;  '  falseliood,'  "^i^*;*,  Jer.  x.  14; 
'  vanity,'  Nl J*,  Jer.  xviii.  15;  '  wind '  or  *  vapour,'  73n, 
Jer.  ii.  5  ;  *  nonentities,'  Q  v  vK,  Ezek.  xxx.  13;  'no  gods,' 
'i'K  i6,  Jer.  ii.  11;' abomination,'  n^^pin,  Jer.  xvi.  18;  'to 
be  loathed,'  ppK^,  Jer.  iv.  1  ;  '  shame,'  n^3,  Jer.  iii.  24. 

But  long  before  Jeremiah,  terms  of  a  similar  kind  are 
employed.  In  Hos.  xiii.  4  we  read :  "  Thou  knowest  no 
God  but  Me ;  there  is  no  saviour  beside  Me."  And  again 
he  says  of  the  idols,  "  They  are  no  god,"  .  &?  Nv  (viii.  6) ; 
and  he  even  calls  them  iih  absolutely  or  ^^5,  i.e.  not 
Jehovah  is  the  universal  Governor.  He  brought  the 
Syrians  from  Kir  as  well  as  Israel  from  Egypt  (Amos 
ix.  7).  In  Mic.  iv.  13  He  is  called  "the  Lord  of  the 
whole  earth."  In  Amos  His  rule  and  judgment  apply  to 
all  nations,  whom  He  chastises  for  their  infringements  of 
the  common  laws  of  humanity.  In  Isaiah  Jehovah  moves 
on  a  swift  cloud  and  flies  to  Egypt,  and  all  the  idols  of 
Egypt  are  moved  at  His  presence  ;  and  speedily  Egypt  shall 
be  part  of  His  Kingdom,  and  Israel  shall  be  a  tliird  with 
Egypt  and  with  Assyria,  even  a  blessing  in  the  midst  of 
the  earth,  whom  the  Lord  of  hosts  shall  bless,  saying : 
*'  Blessed  be  Egypt  My  people,  and  Assyria  the  work  of  My 
hands,  and  Israel  Mine  inheritance"  (xix.  25).  The  only 
ditf'e-^ence  between  the  earlier  and  the  later  in  regard  to 
this  subject  seems  to  be  tliat  while  the  same  doctrine  of  the 
unity  of  God  is  professed  and  taught  by  all,  in  the  earlier 
l)rop.iets  it  is  presup])osed  and  expressed  more  in  concrete 
form  ,  while  in  the  later,  on  account  of  conflicts  that  liad 
5 


66    THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

iiiisen  witliiii  tlio  nation,  and  from  the  political  relations 
into  wliicli  tlie  people  had  entered  with  idolatrous  nations 
a.l)road,  the  subject  liad  become  more  one  of  abstract 
tliought,  and  the  prophets  had  occasion  to  fornndate  the 
faith  of  tlie  nation  more  sharply  in  opposition  to  tendencies 
of  thouglit  tliat  came  in  upon  Israel  from  without,  and 
currents  originated  by  these  tendencies  from  within. 

But  even  during  all  the  prophetic  period,  no  less  after 
than  before  Jeremiah,  that  mode  of  speaking  still  pre- 
vailed which  referred  to  the  idols  of  the  nations  as  having  a 
real  existence  and  as  being  real  gods.  This  way  of  speak- 
ing was  one  natural  to  the  ancient  world.  It  less  readily 
occurred  to  an  ancient  thinker,  who  observed  nations 
around  him  devoutly  attached  to  their  gods,  to  imagine 
that  these  had  no  existence,  or  to  present  to  his  own  mind 
the  idea  that  such  deities  were  mere  impersonations  of  the 
religious  notions  of  the  human  mind.  But  when  the 
prophets  have  the  question  before  their  own  mind  they  are 
at  one  in  denying  any  reality  to  the  gods  of  the  nations — 
there  is  one  God,  Jehovah,  God  of  Israel.  We  observe, 
indeed,  the  same  twofold  method  of  speaking  in  the  New 
Testament.  At  one  time  St.  Paul  says :  "  An  idol  is 
nothing  in  the  world"  (1  Cor.  viii.  4),  and  hence  meat 
sacrificed  to  idols  is  neither  better  nor  worse  than  other 
meat,  if  a  man  have  understanding  and  faith  to  perceive 
that  this  is  tlie  case.  But  as  this  is  not  the  case  w^ith  all 
men,  the  idol  becomes  to  the  apostle  that  which  those  who 
believed  in  it  held  it  to  be,  something  that  had  a  real 
existence ;  *'  But  I  say,  the  things  which  the  Gentiles 
sacrifice,  they  sacrifice  to  devils,  and  not  to  God :  and 
I  would  not  that  ye  should  have  fellowship  with  devils. 
...  Ye  cannot  be  partakers  of  the  Lord's  table,  and  of 
the  table  of  devils"  (1  Cor.  x.  20,  21). 

What  is  said  of  the  prophets  before  Jeremiah  is  true 
of  the  writers  who  preceded  these  prophets.  They  profess 
not  only  faith  in  Jehovah  as  alone  God  of  Israel,  but  faith 
in  llim  as  the  only  God.  Thus  in  the  xviiith  Bsaln.,  the 
undoubted  composition  of  David,  we  find  it  said:  "  Wno  is 


HISTORICAL    ACCOUNTS    OF    THE   NAME  67 

God  save  Johovali  ?  and  wlio  is  a  rock  save  our  God  ? " 
(ver.  31).  Of.  also  Ps.  vii.  8  and  Ex.  xix.  5.  In  the 
former  passage,  part  of  an  ancient  Psalm,  Jehovah  judges 
the  nations ;  in  the  latter — a  passage  belonging  to  the 
oldest  literature — Jehovali  has  all  the  earth  as  His  own. 

God  in  giving  His  revelation  to  Israel  was,  first  of  all, 
intent  that  this  people  should  worship  Him  alone,  that 
they  should  be  practically  monotheists.  It  was  religion 
that  was  first  necessary,  a  practical  faith,  in  order  to  a 
pure  life.  Hence  expression  of  the  doctrines  of  tliis  faitli 
in  a  theoretical  form  was  little  attended  to.  With  the 
practice,  the  life,  there  gradually  rose  to  the  surface  of  the 
mind  the  theoretical  form  of  the  truth.  This  explains  the 
form  in  which  tlie  commandments  are  given ;  how  for 
long  the  doctrines  regarding  God  are  expressed  in  the 
practical  concrete  form ;  and  how  only  late  in  the  history 
of  Israel  and  as  occasion  occurred  did  these  doctrines 
acquire  a  theoretical  expression.  But  the  doctrines  were 
the  same  from  the  beginning. 

6.    The  historical  occasion  of  the  application  of  the 
Name  Jehovah. 

If  we  could  realise  to  ourselves  the  circumstances  in 
which  the  name  Jehovah  came  into  prominence  in  connec- 
tion with  Israel,  it  would  undoubtedly  help  us.  We  have 
two  narratives  of  these  circumstances,  one  in  Ex.  vi.  and 
another  in  Ex.  iii.  Modern  scholars  recognise  different 
writers  in  these  two  passages,  and  it  is  not  quite  easy  to 
reconcile  the  two  statements  made  by  them  witli  one 
another.  The  account  in  Ex.  vi.  is  brief,  that  in  Ex.  iii. 
circumstantial ;  and  it  is  in  tlie  latter  that  we  have  what 
appears  to  be  an  explanation  of  the  name.  The  former  (Ex. 
vi.  2—4)  is  as  follows  :  "  And  God  'n  spake  unto  Moses,  and 
said  unto  him,  I  am  Jahweh\  and  I  appeared  unto  Abraham, 
unto  Isaac,  and  unto  Jacob  as  El  Shaddai  i^^  ^?<3),  but  (as 
to)  J\Iy  name  Jahweli  I  was  not  known  to  tlieni  "  (or,  "  I  did 
not  let  Myself  be  known  by  tliem  ").      The  writer  who  uses 


68  THE   THEOLOGY    OF   THE   OLD    TESTAMENT 

these  words  is  supposed  to  be  the  same  who  in  Gen.  i.  says, 
•*  In  the  beginning  God  created,  0''?^^>*  ^1},  the  heavens  and 
the  earth  " ;  and  who  in  Gen.  xvii.  1  represents  God  in  His 
appearance  to  Al jraliam  as  saying,  "  I  am  Fl  Shaddai " ; 
and  now  he  introduces  God  saying,  "  I  am  Jahiveh."  In 
other  words,  he  is  supposed  to  have  a  general  view  of  the 
progress  of  revelation  and  of  the  Divine  names :  first,  in 
the  times  before  Abraham  the  name  of  God  was  Elohim, 
or  El ;  second,  in  the  Patriarchal  age  it  was  El  Shaddai, 
from  Abraham  onwards ;  and  in  the  Mosaic  age  and  hence- 
forward it  was  Jahweh.  And  in  conformity  with  this  view 
it  is  supposed  that  the  writer  avoided  the  name  Jahiueh 
in  his  historical  sketch  of  ancient  times,  till  he  reached  in 
his  narrative  this  revelation  to  Moses,  when  God  called 
Himself  Jahweh. 

If  this  be  an  accurate  account  of  the  facts,  we  may  be 
obliged  to  assume  a  certain  difference  of  tradition,  for  in 
other  parts  of  Genesis  the  name  Jahweh  is  assumed  to  exist 
in  pre-Mosaic  times.  Thus  it  is  not  only  freely  put  into 
the  mouth  of  the  Patriarchs,  which  might  be  due  merely  to 
usage ;  but  it  is  expressly  said  of  men  in  the  times  of  Enos, 
the  son  of  Seth :  "  Then  began  men  to  call  upon  the  name 
of  Jahweh"  (Gen.  iv.  26).  Looking  at  these  facts,  it  is 
certainly  more  probable  that  the  author  of  Ex.  vi.  does  not 
mean  to  deny  that  the  name  Jahweh  was  older  than  Moses, 
or  unknown  before  his  day.  He  denies  rather  that  it  had 
Divine  sanction  before  his  day,  and  regards  it  as  appropriated 
by  God  now  and  authorised  as  part  of  His  manifestation  of 
Himself, — as  that  which  He  revealed  of  Himself  at  this 
new  turning-point  in  the  history  of  redemption.  This  is 
probably  tlie  meaning,  because  the  words  are  not  "My  name 
Jahweh  was  not  known  to  them  "  (V^i^^),  but  "  in  or,  as  to, 
My  name  Jahweh,  I  was  not  known  by  them,"  or,  "  I  did 
not  become  known  ('^V*]^^)  to  them."  This  interpretation 
admits  the  view,  which  is  certainly  likely,  that  the  name 
was  old  ;  it  introduces  no  discrepancy  into  the  various 
narratives  in  Genesis ;  and  it  is  in  harmony  with  the  otlier 
passage  in  Exodus.     On  all  hands  it  is  admitted  that  in  His 


THE    PASSAGES    IN    EXODUS  69 

revelation  to  Moses,  God  appropriated  the  name  Jahirch  to 
Himself,  and  stamped  it  as  the  name  expressive  of  His 
relation  to  Israel  now  aliout  to  be  entered  into  and  mani- 
fested in  deeds  of  redemption,  and  in  memory  of  these 
deeds  to  be  henceforth  His  peculiar  name  as  God  in  Israel. 
It  is  in  the  other  passage,  however,  Ex.  iii.,  tliat  more 
details  are  supplied,  and  wliere  there  is  given  what  some 
have  supposed  to  be  an  etymology  of  the  name.  There 
it  is  narrated  how,  as  Moses  kept  the  flocks  of  Jethro 
on  Horeb,  the  angel  of  Jaluvth  appeared  to  him  in  a  bush 
that  burned,  but  did  not  consume.  The  angel  of  Jahweh 
here,  according  to  the  usage,  is  not  any  created  angel; 
it  is  Jehovah  Himself  in  manifestation,  for  He  immediately 
says :  "  I  am  the  God  of  Abraham."  Moses  turned  aside 
to  see  the  great  sight,  and  the  Lord  addressed  him  from 
tlie  bush,  and  said :  "  I  am  the  God  of  thy  father,  the  God 
of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob." 
This  is  the  first  point,  God  who  now  appeared  to  him 
was  the  same  God  who  had  appeared  to  the  fathers,  and 
led  them.  The  Being  is  the  same,  but  as  yet  there  is  no 
reference  to  His  peculiar  name.  But  the  cause  of  His  mani- 
festation of  Himself  now  lies  in  His  relation  to  the  seed 
of  Abraham,  His  friend :  "  I  have  seen  the  affliction  of  My 
people,  .  .  .  and  am  come  down  to  deliver  them  out  of  the 
hand  of  the  Egyptians " ;  in  which  great  operation  Moses 
must  serve  him  :  "  Come  now,  therefore,  and  I  will  send 
thee  unto  Pharaoh."  Moses  shrank  from  the  great  task, 
and  pleaded  his  unfitness :  "  Who  am  I,  that  I  should  go 
unto  Pharaoh  ?  "  The  reply  of  the  Lord  to  him  is  significant, 
and  the  phraseology  of  it  of  great  importance :  "  Surely  I 
will  be  with  thee"  ^^V  ^;^^J|  ''3_n>ns,  / '^t'^7/ &e.  And  in 
token  of  this  great  promise  of  His  presence  with  him  the 
Lord  proposes  to  Moses  a  sign.  Now,  as  I  have  said,  it 
is  of  consequence  to  notice  the  phraseology  used,  hmn,  / 
will  he,  because  it  recurs  immediately.  Moses  is  still 
reluctant  to  undertake  what  seemed  to  him  so  hazardous 
an  enterprise ;  he  pictures  to  himself  not  only  the  dangers 
he  might  encounter  from  the  Egyptians,  but  the  incredulity 


70  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

with  which  he  is  likely  to  be  met  on  the  part  of  the 
Hebrews — "Behold,  wheu  I  come  unto  the  children  of 
Israel,  and  shall  say  unto  them,  The  God  of  your  fathers 
hath  sent  me  unto  you ;  and  they  shall  say  unto  me,  What 
is  his  name  ?  what  shall  I  say  unto  them  ? "  And  God  said 
unto  him  n^is  's  r\^r]^ ;  "  and  ho  said  thus  shalt  thou  say 
unto  the  cliildren  of  Israel,  n\iN  hath  sent  me  unto  you." 
And  God  added  finally :  "  Thus  shalt  thou  say  unto  the 
children  of  Israel,  JaJuueh,  the  God  of  your  fathers,  the  God 
of  Abraham,  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God  of  Jacob,  hath 
sent  me  unto  you :  this  (i.e.  Jahiueh)  is  My  name  for  ever, 
and  this  is  My  memorial  unto  all  generations."  Then 
follows  an  amplified  form  of  the  promise  to  deliver  the 
people,  and  work  great  signs  and  wonders  in  Egypt,  and 
do  great  judgments  upon  that  people. 

Now,  here  the  name  appears  in  three  forms :  'k  n^ns 
iiMX,  the  simple  r]^7]i^,  and  JaJiweh.  Jahweh  is  merely  the 
tliird  person,  of  which  Ehych  is  the  first ;  He  who  says 
Ehijeh  when  speaking  of  Himself  is  JaMveh  when  spoken 
about.  But  does  it  not  seem  manifest,  as  has  already 
been  indicated,  that  the  name  Ehyeh  or  Ehyeh  asher  Ehyeh 
cannot  be  translated  differently  from  that  former  expression: 
'*  Certainly  I  will  be  witli  thee,"  T]?2V  n;nx  ;  that  it  is  nothing 
else  but  that  promise  raised  into  a  title,  and  that  we  must 
render  /  will  he,  and  /  will  he  that  I  will  he,  and,  in  the 
third  person.  He  will  he  ?  It  is  evident  that  the  whole 
meaning  of  the  larger  phrase,  "  I  will  be  that  I  will  be," 
'nx  'n  'ns,  may  be  expressed  by  the  shorter  phrase  /  ivill  he 
'na,  or,  in  the  third  person,  'r\\  The  addition,  "  that  which 
I  will  be,"  or  as  it  might  be  rendered :  "  I  who  will  l)e," 
only  adds  empliasis  to  the  preceding  /  will  he.  The 
expressi(Hi  resembles  the  other  declaration :  "  I  will  have 
mercy  on  whom  I  will  have  mercy,"  the  meaning  of  which 
would  be  clearer  if  put  in  this  order :  "  On  whom  I  will 
have  mercy  I  will  have  mercy."  That  is  t(j  say,  when  He 
has  mercy,  then,  indeed,  He  has  mercy  ;  and  so,  "  tliat  which 
I  will  be,  1  will  indeed  1)0."  But  the  point  of  tlie  plirase 
lies  in  the  circumstances  of  misery  and  bondage  on  the  part 


MEANING    OF   THE   NAME  71 

of  f,]io  i)0(»]tl(^  ill  wliicli  it  was  spoken,  in  the  very  va.gueness 
of  tlio  promise  of  interference  and  presence,  and  in  the 
continiKHisness  of  that  presence  whicli  is  suggested.  The 
name  is  a  circumference  the  contents  of  which  cannot 
be  expressed.  He  who  reHes  on  the  same  has  the 
assurance  of  One,  the  God  of  his  fathers,  who  will  be 
with  him.  What  He  shall  be  to  him  when  with  him  the 
memory  of  wliat  He  has  been  to  those  that  have  gone 
before  him  may  suggest ;  or  his  own  needs  and  circum- 
stances in  every  stage  and  peril  of  his  life  will  tell  him. 
Or  his  conception  of  God  as  reposing  on  the  past  and  on 
his  own  experience,  and  looking  into  the  future,  may  project 
that  before  his  mind.  ^^^ 

The  name  Jehovah  does  not^Weal  a  God  wlio  was  not 
known.  Jehovah  is  ^^  saying :  "  I  will  be  " — I  will  approve 
Myself. 

The  name  is  not  one  expressing  special  attributes  of 
Jehovah ;  it  is  rather  a  name  expressive  of  that  which  all 
His  attributes  make  Him — the  same  at  all  times,  the  true 
in  covenant.  His  being  ever  like  Himself,  the  unchanging. 

The  name  supplies  two  things  absolutely  necessary  in 
this  age.  (1)  A  personal  name  for  God.  Without  this  it 
may  be  said  that  the  people  could  not  have  been  educated 
into  Monotheism.  It  brought  strongly  into  relief  His 
personality — His  particular  personality;  and  (2)  a  strong 
expression  of  His  union  with  this  people.  The  name  did 
not  express  any  attribute  of  God,  or  describe  God  as  to  His 
essence;  but  it  described  Him  in  this  relation  to  Israel — 
"  I  will  be  with  thee." 

The  same  general  principles  apply  to  the  discussion 
of  another  question,  namely,  the  spirituality  of  Jahweh. 
There  also  the  commandment  merely  prohibits  the  repre- 
sentation of  Israel's  God  under  any  material  form.  It 
does  not  state  directly  that  He  has  no  such  form.  This 
could  not  have  been  expected  from  a  practical  religion,  the 
object  of  which  was  to  initiate  men  into  the  truth  in 
practical  \.\^'\  that  gradually  they  might  ascend  to  its 
principles    in    speculation.     Except    the    evidence    of   the 


72  THE   THEOLOGY    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

secMtiid  coiinnaiidineiit,  there  is  natuially  not  much  to  rely 
uiHiii  MS  evidence  in  favour  of  the  spirituality  of  Jahweh. 
Some  evidence  of  an  indirect  kind  may  he  found  in  such 
statements  as  tliose  in  the  fourth  commandment.  The 
(Creator  of  heaven  and  earth  can  liardly  he  one  capahle  of 
heing  presented  under  tlie  Himies  or  7\y\'or\  of  anything 
whicli  He  has  created.  But  this,  though  an  inference  that 
we  sliould  make,  nijiy  not  have  occurred  to  peoples  whose 
mode  of  thouglit  was  less  exact.  More  trustworthy 
evidence,  though  only  of  a  confirmatory  kind,  may  he 
found  in  the  history  of  the  Ark  and  the  Tahernacle.  It 
is  certain  that  no  form*  was  permitted  in  the  Tabernacle. 
Jahweli  was  worsliipp^^fta  formless  being.  The  injunc- 
tions of  the  law  wer^mere  carried  out  in  practice.  In 
Judah  almost  always,  we  miglit  say,  the  worship  of  Jehovah 
without  any  image  prevailed,  and  in  Jerusalem  this  worship 
was  never  interrupted. 

But  we  may  readily  conceive  how  a  coarse-minded 
people  liad  difficulty  in  acconnnodating  themselves  to 
this  abstract  religion.  The  idea  under  which  they  con- 
ceived God  was  the  powerful ;  the  symbol  of  might, 
strength,  was  the  ox.  Even  in  the  prophets  the  mighty 
One  of  Israel,  "'''35^,  is  called  by  the  same  name  by  which 
the  ox  is  called.  A  sensuous  race  could  ill  be  restrained 
from  giving  Jahweh  a  sensible  form  in  order  to  realise  Him 
to  themselves.  We  know  how  early  this  occurred,  and  how 
even  the  weaker  leaders  of  the  people  were  drawn  into  the 
error.  All  down  the  history  of  the  people  this  tendency 
manifested  itself,  and  it  is  to  be  presumed  that  the  private 
sanctuaries  so  common  in  the  north,  particularly  in  the 
time  of  the  Judges,  contained  images  of  Jahweh  in  the 
form  of  an  ox.  This  was  the  type  of  power.  And 
the  familiarity  of  the  pe(jple  with  this  form  explains  the 
readiness  with  wliich  Jeroboam's  religious  innovations  were 
accepted,  liut  all  tliis  does  not  imply  that  the  spirituality 
of  Jaliweli  was  not  a  doctrine  of  all  the  higher  minds  in 
the  nation  and  of  Mosaism  itself.  It  merely  implies  that 
the  crass  imagination  of  the  masses  had  not  been  penetrated 


THE    DIVIXE    NATURE  73 

by  the  idea,  and  tliat  tlieir  sensuous  minds,  like  the  l)nlk  of 
the  lower  orders  in  Catholic  Christendom,  demanded  and 
welcomed  some  external  object  in  order  to  bring  before 
them  tlie  real  existence  of  their  God.  The  case  of  tlie 
great  propliets  Elijah  and  Elisha  has  been  adduced  in 
order  to  prove  that  the  spirituality  of  Jahweh  was  ncjt 
a  doctrine  of  Mosaism  originally,  but  only  a  development 
of  it  belonging  to  the  eighth  century,  or  the  age  of  the 
literary  prophets.  But,  in  the  first  place,  we  have  very 
imperfect  accounts  of  these  prophets,  and  the  accounts 
we  have  are  taken  up  with  their  conflict  against  a  much 
more  serious  evil,  namely,  the  profoundly  immoral  worship 
of  Baal  which  the  State  authori^^tad  introduced.  That 
they  contented  themselves  with  ^mtending  against  this,  or 
that  their  contentions  against  minor  evils  should  be  over- 
looked in  their  great  warfare  against  fundamental  per- 
versions of  the  theocratic  idea,  was  not  unnatural.  We 
have  no  writings  from  these  prophets,  Elijah  and  Elisha ; 
but  the  first  writings  that  we  possess  contain  strenuous 
protests  against  all  images  of  Jehovah,  the  setting  up  of 
which  is  identified  with  idokitry,  and  tlie  images  themselves 
are  called  by  the  odious  names  of  Baals. 


///.   THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD— THE  DIVINE 
NATURE. 

1.   The  Knowledge  of  God, 

The  existence  of  God  is  not  a  doctrine  of  Scripture  in 
the  sense  that  Scripture  directly  teaches  it.  It  is  assumed 
there  as  a  fact,  and  as  an  element  in  the  thought  of  all 
men ;  as  connate  with  man.  If  there  be  men  who  deny 
it,  or  do  not  know  it,  it  is  because  by  a  long  course  of 
wilful  wickedness  they  have  banished  the  knowledge  of  it 
from  their  minds,  and  their  state  is  not  so  much  miserable 
as  criminal.  Even  in  their  case,  extreme  as  it  is,  the 
knowledge  that  God  is  is  not  finally  darkened,  but  only 


74  THE    THEOLOGY    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

temporarily  eclipsed  ;  it.   is  raUicr  forgctL'ulnes.s   than   final 
loss — they  shall  renienil)cr  and  turn  unto  the  Lord. 

It  may  seem  hardly  to  be  another  thing,  but  rather 
something  involved  in  the  above,  when  we  say  that  Scrip- 
ture does  not  teach,  but  assumes,  that  God  may  be  known. 
We  do  not  mean  known  to  he,  but  known,  seeing  that  He  is. 
Scripture  does  not  teach  that  God  may  be  known,  but  it 
teaches  these  things — in  what  ways  He  is  known,  and  that 
He  is  known  so  far  as  He  gives  Himself  to  be  known. 
But  it  always  assumes  as  a  thing  undeniable  that  He  may 
be  known.  The  doctrine  of  Scripture  on  the  knowdbility 
of  God  is  much  more  extensive  than  its  doctrine  regarding 
His  existence.  Two  r^t^gs  have  to  be  considered  here, 
namely,  first,  what  Scripfiire  teaches  about  the  possibility  of 
knowing  God ;  and,  second,  what  Scripture  teaches  about 
God  thus  known.  In  dealing  with  these  questions  it  is 
not  necessary  to  distinguish  between  what  Scripture  asserts 
and  what  it  assumes,  inasmuch  as  its  assumptions  may  be 
considered  its  teaching  even  more  than  its  direct  affirma- 
tions. Now,  regarding  this  doctrine  of  our  knowledge  of 
God,  we  find  these  four  positions:  (1)  Scripture  assumes 
that  God  may  be  and  is  known  l^y  men.  (2)  This  know- 
ledge of  God  on  the  part  of  men  is  man's  fellowship  with 
God.  (3)  The  avenues  through  which  this  knowledge 
reaches  man's  soul,  or  the  regions  within  which  man 
moving  meets  and  knows  God,  are  many — such  as  nature, 
the  spiritual  life  of  the  soul,  the  redemptive  history, 
prophecy,  miracle,  and  so  on.  And  (4)  Scripture  denies 
that  God  can  be  known  by  man.  Perhaps  Scripture  is 
even  more  particular  than  what  is  here  laid  down.  It  may 
also  be  thought  to  state  what  element  or  organ  of  man  it 
is  that  knows  God  immediately — whether  the  soul  or  the 
spirit.  But  if  it  do,  that  question  need  not  be  raised  by  us 
here,  because,  by  whatever  organ  or  side  of  his  nature  man 
knows  God,  it  is  not  accurate  to  say  that  it  is  that  organ 
or  side  that  knows.  It  is  man  that  knows  through  or  by 
that  organ  or  side ;  and  we  are  concerned  meantime  with 
the  possibility  and  reality  of  man's  knowing  God,  not  with 


KNOWABILITY   OF   GOD    ASSUMED  75 

any  qiiostion  of  what  oloiiioiit  of  mau  it  is  by  whiob  ho 
knows, — which  is  a  question  concerning  antln'()])()logy. 

J^ow,Jirsf,  it  is  hardly  needful  to  prove  tluit  Scripture 
teaches  or  assumes  that  God  may  be  known — i.e.  not  that 
God  may  he  known  to  be,  but  that  God  who  is  may  be 
known  ;  not  that  He  may  be  known  as  being  or  to  1)0  what 
He  is,  but  that  being  what  He  is  He  may  be  known.  If  I 
say  I  know  the  king,  I  do  not  mean  I  know  that  the  king 
is,  or  I  know  what  the  king  is  ;  but  that  the  king  being, 
and  being  all  that  he  is  in  office  and  person,  I  know 
him — I,  a  person,  know  him  personally.  To  know  in 
Scripture  is  to  be  acquainted  with,  to  have  familiarity  and 
acquaintance  with  whoever  is  known.  The  Bible  certainly 
recognises  all  these  four  degrees  of  knowledge  :  {a)  to  know 
that  God  is ;  (b)  to  know  what  God  is ;  (c)  to  know 
that  a  certain  Being,  or  a  Being  who  manifests  Himself 
in  a  certain  way,  is  God;  and  (d)  to  know  God,  who 
so  manifests  Himself.  Thus  Scripture  says :  "  He  that 
Cometh  to  God  must  believe  that  He  is,  and  that  He  is  a 
re  warder  of  them  that  diligently  seek  Him  "  (Heb.  xi.  6) ; 
though  I  am  not  sure  whether  that  text  means  to 
describe  the  attributes  of  a  person  who  does  come  unto 
God,  or  the  re(|uisites  (^f  a  person  who  shall  come ;  whether 
it  means  to  say :  "  He  who  cometh  unto  God  shows  himself, 
by  coming,  to  be  possessed  of  a  belief  in  God's  existence 
and  in  His  moral  government ;  or  to  say :  "  If  any  one  will 
come  to  God,  he  must,  in  order  to  come,  believe  in  God's 
existence  and  in  His  moral  government."  But,  in  any  case, 
the  distinction  between  the  idea  that  God  is  and  what  God 
is,  is  clearly  recognised. 

As  to  what  God  is,  —  all  that  God  is,  —  this  is 
generally  embraced  in  Scripture  under  the  expression 
the  '  na7ne  of  God.'  That  term  embodies  all  His  charac- 
teristics— is  the  summary  of  ^ohat  He  is.  Hence  it  is 
said,  "  they  that  know  Thy  name — what  Thou  art — will 
put  their  trust  in  Thee"  (Ps.  ix.  10);  and  "the  name  of 
tlie  Lord  is  a  strong  tower  :  the  righteous  runneth  into  it, 
and   is   safe"   (Prov.    xviii.    10).       And    nothing   is   more 


76  THE    THEOLOGY   OF    THE    OLD   TESTAMENT 

coniiiioii  ill  S(',ri])turo  tliaii  llio  idea  tliat  certain  acts,  or 
words,  or  iiiaiiifestatioiis,  sliow  tlie  Actor  or  Speaker  to  be 
God — "Be  still,  and  know  that  I  am  God"  (Ps.  xlvi.  10); 
"Believe  Me  for  the  very  works'  sake"  (John  xiv.  11); 
"  Unto  tliee  it  was  sliowed,  that  thou  mightest  know  that 
Jehovah  is  God.  Out  of  heaven  He  made  thee  to  hear 
His  voice ;  and  upon  earth  He  showed  thee  His  great 
fire  "  (Deut.  iv.  35).  And  it  is  said  that  God's  wonders 
in  Egy[)t  brouglit  both  the  Israelites  and  the  Egyptians 
to  know  that  the  worker  of  them  was  God : — Israel  shall 
know — the  Egyptians  sliall  know  that  I  am  the  Lord — 
the  heathen  shall  know^  that  I  am  the  Lord.  And  that 
this  Being,  who  is  known  by  His  works  to  be  God,  may 
Himself  also  be  known,  is  manifest  in  every  line  of  the 
Bible.  Indeed,  it  is  the  object  of  the  Bible  to  make  Him 
known — the  object  of  the  Incarnation  to  declare  Him — 
"  tJiat  they  might  know  Thee  the  only  true  God,  and 
Jesus  Christ,  whom  Thou  hast  sent"  (John  xvii.  3).  And 
while  Scripture  shows  how  all  along  history  God  made 
Himself  known  to  men,  it  predicts  that  the  time  is  at 
hand  when  all  shall  know  Him — "they  shall  all  know 
Ale,  from  the  least  of  them  unto  the  greatest  of  them " 
(Jer.  xxxi.  34). 

Further,  as  to  the  second  thing  the  Scripture  was  said 
to  teach  regarding  this  knowledge,  namely,  that  it  was 
fellowship  with  God,  it  may  perhaps  be  questioned  if  that 
statement  be  strictly  accurate.  At  least,  if  it  be  not 
accurate  to  say  that  Scripture  identifies  knowledge  of 
God  with  fellowship  with  Him,  it  considers  the  two  in- 
separable, and  so  allied  that  the  one  may  be  put  for  the 
other.  Christ  Himself  says  :  to  know  Thee  is  eternal  life 
(John  xvii.  3),  and  calls  this  knowledge  and  life  the  object 
(jf  His  mission.  And  His  apostle  calls  the  object  of  his 
mission  fellowship — "  that  ye  may  have  fellowship  with  us  : 
and  truly  our  fellowship  is  with  the  Father,  and  with  His 
Son  Jesus  Christ"  (1  Jolm  i.  3).  Ikit  what  I  am  con- 
cerned to  say  is  that  Scripture  does  not  present  God  as 
an    object    of    abstract    contemplation,  or    anticipate   His 


THE   UNSEEN   BACKGROUND  77 

being  made  such.  He  is  jilways  a  historical  IUmd^,  witli 
a  liistory,  witli  a  ])ai'ticular  s})liere  of  man i testations  in 
specific  relations,  and  exhibiting  a  certain  character  in 
these  relations.  No  doubt  there  is  a  background, — an 
tinseen, — but  that  is  rarely  before  the  eye  of  the  saint 
or  prophet.  Occasionally,  liowever,  it  is ,  and  when  it  is, 
he  can  only  speak  of  it  in  negatives  like  ourselves.  God 
in  that  case  cannot  be  made  the  subject  of  positive  speech 
or  thought :  "  Canst  thou  by  searching  find  out  God  ? " 
(Job  xi.  7).  "  Who  hath  measured  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  ?  " 
(Isa.  xl.  13).  Scripture  does  recognise  this  distinction, 
which  the  Germans  have  made  so  much  of,  between  im- 
manent and  economic ;  that  is,  God  as  in  Himself  He  is, 
and  God  as  in  revelation  He  has  shown  Himself  to  us. 
But  while  many  theologians  and  philosophers,  in  main- 
taining that  distinction,  have  asserted  either  that  God 
immanent  is  different  from  God  economic  (a  singular 
position  to  assume,  seeing  the  term  economic  must  em- 
brace the  whole  circuit  of  our  knowledge  of  God),  or  have 
contented  themselves  with  the  position  that  we  are  unable 
to  say  whether  He  be  the  same  or  different,  Scripture 
never  contemplates  the  idea  that  He  is  different.  He 
is  the  same  as  we  know  Him  to  be ;  only  Hejsall  that  we 
know  Him  to  be,  heightened  so  as  to  exceed  our  reach  of 
thinking. 

""^  It  is  rare,  however,  that  Scripture  deserts  the  region 
of  revelation,  the  very  idea  of  which  implies  that  God 
can  be  known ;  or  the  region  of  spiritual  experience,  which 
is  but  another  name  for  fellowship.  The  occasions  when 
it  does  desert  this  empirical  realm  are  chiefly  two :  first, 
when  showing  the  absurdity  of  idolatry  it  holds  up  the 
Incom2Jrehensible  before  the  idol-maker,  and  asks  if  his 
idol  be  a  proper  presentation  of  Him ;  and  second,  in 
cases  of  religious  desertion,  or  other  awful  and  unwonted 
experience  in  the  soul,  when  the  spirit  moving  amidst 
mysteries  is  brought  often  to  question  the  truth  of  its 
ideas  of  God,  and  always  to  recognise  that,  whetlier  true  or 
not,  they  go  but  a  little  way  to  express  Him ; — "  Verily, 


78  THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

Tlinu  art,  a  (Jod  tliat  liidost  Tliynelf,  0  dn]  of  Tsraer' 
(Isa.  \lv.  15).  Tims,  what  Sciipluro  means  by  knowledge 
of  God  is  an  ethical  relation  to  Ilim  ;  and,  on  the  other 
side,  when  it  says  that  God  knows  man,  it  means  He  has 
sympathy  and  fellowship  with  him.  All  Israel's  history 
is  filled  with  this  reciprocal  knowledge,  rising  up  from 
strength  to  strength,  till  One  came  who  knew  the  Father, 
and  whom  the  Father  knew  in  fulness : — "  No  man  knoweth 
the  Son  but  the  Father ;  neither  knoweth  any  man  the 
Father  save  the  Son,  and  he  to  whomsoever  the  Son  will 
reveal  Him"  (Matt.  xi.  27). 

Now,  thirdly,  as  to  the  channels  through  which  this 
knowledge  reaches  man,  or  the  regions  movinsj  in  which 
man  knows  or  comes  to  the  knowledge  of  God.  Those 
that  Scripture  recognises  are  very  much  what  we  insist 
upon  to  this  day,  viz.  nature,  history,  the  human  soul.  But 
I  think  Scripture  does  not  make  quite  the  same  use  of 
these  things  as  we  do  in  our  Natural  Tlieology.  For  ex- 
ample, I  doubt  whether  it  regards  these  as  primary  sources 
of  our  knowledge  of  the  existence  or  of  the  character  of  God. 
Tlie  position  it  assumes  is  not  this :  Contemplate  nature 
and  you  will  learn  from  it,  both  that  God  is  and  what  He 
is  ;  but  rather  this  :  You  know  that  God  is,  and  what  He  is  ; 
and  if  you  contemplate  nature,  you  will  see  Him  there — 
the  heavens  declare  the  glory  of  God.  This,  at  least,  is 
the  position  of  the  Old  Testament  revelation,  though  in  the 
New  I  am  not  sure  Ijut  some  further  use  is  made  of  nature. 
And,  in  any  case,  if  God's  character  be  manifest  in  nature, 
then  that  memory  of  God  and  that  knowledge  of  Him 
which  we  liave  otherwise  may  be  refreshed,  and  if  needful 
corrected  by  tlie  contemplation  of  nature.  I  need  not  say 
that  Scri])ture  neither  contemplates  any  one  destitute  of 
the  knowledge  of  God,  nor  describes  the  process  whereby 
any  one  destitute  of  this  knowledge  comes  to  reach  it.  It 
merely  mentions  certain  regions  in  which,  or  media  by 
which,  God  is  in  fact  and  actually  known;  without  assert- 
ing that  any  of  them  occupies  the  first  place,  much  less 
the  only  place ;   without  saying  of  any  of  them   that   it 


GOD    AND    NATURE  79 

is  the  medium  through  wliicli  we  hrst  know  or  hcgin  to 
know  God,  or  is  the  only  medium  through  which  God  can 
he  known. 

Now  in  regard  to  nature.  Scripture  has  heen  thouglit 
to  teach  or  assume  not  only  that  God  may  be  recognised 
in  nature,  but  that  He  may  be  known  from  nature,  i.e.  not 
only  that  we  may  see  God  there  whom  we  already  know, 
but  tliat  we  may  discover  God  there  though  formerly 
unknown.  The  Old  Testament,  as  it  spoke  chietiy  to  a 
people  having  a  knowledge  of  God  from  revelation,  insists 
mainly  on  recognising  that  God  of  revelation  in  nature  ; 
but  it  also  appeals  to  nature  to  correct  the  ideas  of  God 
given  by  revelation  when  the  people  had  perverted  them.. 
It  is  merely  exhibition  of  an  already  known  God  which 
we  find  (Ps.  viii.  and  xix.) ;  but  it  is  a  heightening  of 
the  conceptions  already  had  of  God  when  Isaiah  points 
to  the  starry  heavens,  saying,  "  To  whom  then  will  ye 
liken  Me,  or  shall  I  be  equal  ?  saith  the  Holy  One.  Lift 
up  your  eyes  on  high,  and  behold !  Who  hath  created 
these  things?"  (xl.  25).  And  in  a  remarkable  passage 
in  Ps.  xciv.  an  inference  is  drawn  from  the  nature  of  man 
to  the  nature  of  God  who  made  him,  and  an  argument 
somewhat  similar  to  what  we  call  our  argument  from 
design  ^  is  conducted.  The  writer  in  that  Psalm  denounces, 
first,  the  wickedness  of  certain  men ;  and,  second,  their 
foolishness  in  thinking  that  God  cannot  or  does  not  see 
their  wickedness  : — "  They  say  the  Lord  sliall  not  see, 
neither  shall  the  God  of  Jacob  regard  it.  .  .  .  Ye  fools, 
when  will  ye  be  wise  ?  He  that  planted  the  ear,  shall 
He  not  hear  ?  He  that  formed  the  eye,  shall  He  not 
see  ? "  While,  of  course,  it  is  always  assumed  that  God 
created  the  capacities,  it  is  argued  that  tlie  existence  of 
certain   capacities   in    man   implies   tlieir   existence    mucli 

^  Wliat  IS  called  the  ontolo<,acal  argument  is  probably  not  touched  in 
Scrii»turo.  The  cosniological  may  be  supjjosed  to  be  touched  in  Paul's  state- 
ment, "In  whom  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being,"  although,  as 
usual,  the  fact  is  assumed.  It  is  not  put  so  as  to  be  proof.  The  physico- 
theological  or  teleological  argument  i^  ofteu  alluded  to. 


80  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

more  in  the  Creator  of  man  ;  and  the  Apostle  Paul  conducts 
a  similar  argument  before  the  Athenians  when,  from  the 
fact  that  we  are  the  offspring  of  God,  he  infers  the  absurdity 
of  representing  God  by  images  of  gold  or  silver : — "  Foras- 
much, then,  as  we  are  the  offspring  of  God,  we  ought  not  to 
think  that  the  Godhead  is  like  unto  gold  or  silver  or  stone, 
graven  by  art  and  man's  device"  (Acts  xvii.  29).  All 
these  passages  speak  of  discovering,  or  recognising,  the 
character  of  a  Being  supposed  to  be  already  known ;  so 
that  while  it  is  mainly  recognition,  it  in  no  case  goes 
fm-ther  than  correction  of  false  ideas  of  Him,  or  inference 
as  to  His  true  character  from  His  works. 

There  is  one  passage,  however,  which  many  have 
thought  to  go  further,  and  to  teach  that  it  may  be  dis- 
covered from  nature  that  God  is,  as  well  as  what  He  is — 
the  w^ell-known  passage  in  Eom.  i.  19.  Now  that  passage 
certainly  teaches  or  assumes  that  in  nature  certain  things, 
or  so  much,  of  God,  may  be  or  is  known, — "  that  which 
may  be  known  of  God  {to  ^vwcnov)  is  manifest  in  them, — 
for  God  showed  it  unto  them."  Apart  from  revelation,  so 
much  is  known  of  God, — it  is  known  in  men's  hearts, — for 
God  has  made  it  known  to  them.  And  it  is  known  thus : 
the  invisible  things  of  God,  the  invisible  attributes  which 
form  His  character,  are  seen  from  His  works,  voovfieva 
being  =  things  perceived  by  the  reason,  even  His  power  and 
Godhead,  detorrjf;.  But  it  is  doubtful  if  OeioTr)^  include 
existence — it  is  all  the  attributes  that  make  up  Godhead. 
It  is  questionable  whether  the  passage  contemplates  proof 
of  the  Being  of  God.  The  Scripture  does  not  seem  to 
contemplate  men  without  a  knowledge  of  the  existence 
of  God,  or  without  certain  ideas  regarding  His  nature. 
It  does  contemplate  them  as  possessed  of  perverted  ideas 
regarding  Him ;  and  it  affirms,  both  in  the  Old  Testament 
and  in  the  New,  that  so  far  right  notions  of  God  may  be 
derived  from  nature  apart  altogether  from  supernatural 
revelation. 

But  Scripture  regards  Revelation,  particularly  as  his- 
torical, as  the  main  source  of  our  knowledge  of  God,  or  the 


GOD    INCOMPREHENSIBLE  81 

main  region  wlierein  God  is  known.  I  have  already  quoted 
passages  to  this  effect,  and  I  need  not  repeat  them.  But 
there  are  two  elements  in  the  history  of  revelation  which 
Scripture  singles  out  as  spheres  wherein  God  is  specially 
known — miracle  and  prophecy.  The  miracle  is  not  only  a 
proof  that  God  is  there ;  the  complexion  of  the  miracle 
is  an  exhibition  of  some  aspect  of  the  character  of  God. 
"According  to  Josh.  iii.  10,  it  is  shown  by  the  wonderful 
subjugation  of  the  Canaanites  that  Jehovah  is  the  living 
God ;  according  to  Ex.  vii.  5,  the  Egyptians  shall  know  by 
the  plagues  He  sends  upon  them  that  Jehovah  is  God ; 
according  to  Deut.  vi.  21,  the  miracles  are  meant  to  draw 
the  eyes  of  all  nations  to  Jehovah,  just  as  in  Ex.  ix.  29 
they  are  intended  to  produce  the  conviction  that  the  earth 
is  the  Lord's"  (Steudel,  Vorlcsungen  iiber  die  Theologie  des 
AT.,  p.  170).  And  very  frequently  Scripture  sets  forth 
prophecy  as  a  sphere  in  which  God  may  be  known.  This 
mark  of  God's  presence  is  very  much  insisted  upon  in  the 
second  half  of  Isaiah,  and  in  chap.  xli.  it  is  coupled  with 
the  extraordinary,  if  not  miraculous,  history  of  Cyrus,  as 
manifesting  the  activity  of  God — "  Who  raised  up  the 
righteous  man  from  the  East — gave  the  nations  before 
him,  and  made  him  rule  over  kings  ?  I  the  Lord,  the 
first  and  with  the  last,  I  am  He."  And  idols  are  chal- 
lenged to  demonstrate  their  Godhead  by  predicting  some 
event  near  or  distant : — "  Let  them  show  us  what  will 
happen — let  them  show  the  former  things,  or  the  things 
that  are  to  come  hereafter."  Such  is  the  tenor  of  the 
passage. 

■  But  now,  foiirfhlg,  in  opposition  to  all  this,  Scripture 
denies  that  God  can  be  known.  It  moves  here  among 
natural  contradictories  or  antinomies,  which  only  need  to  be 
cited  to  be  understood.  Thus  it  says  of  the  angels  that 
they  see  God — "  their  angels  do  always  behold  the  face  of 
My  Father  who  is  in  heaven"  (Matt,  xviii.  10).  But  of 
men  in  their  present  bodily  life  it  says,  "  no  man  shall 
see  God  and  live"  (Ex.  xxxiii.  20;  cf.  John  i.  18,  etc.); 
while  again,  on  the  other  hand,  David  comforts  himself 
6 


82    THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

w  ilh  the  hope  tliat  he  shall  see  God :  "  As  for  me,  I  will 
hehold  Thy  face  in  righteousness  :  I  sliall  be  satisfied,  when 
I  awake,  with  Thy  likeness"  (Ps.  xvii.  15);  and  Jesus 
promises  the  same  thing  to  those  wlio  are  pure  in  heart 
(Matt.  V.  8) ;  and  John  says  :  "  We  shall  be  like  Him  ;  for 
we  sliall  see  Him  as  He  is"  (1  John  iii.  2).  Again,  it  is 
said  (Ex.  xxiv.  9,  10):  "Then  went  up  Moses  and  Aaron, 
Nadab  and  Abihu,  and  seventy  of  the  elders  of  Israel :  and 
they  saw  the  God  of  Israel."  There  is  the  statement : 
"No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time"  (John  i.  18)  ;  while 
again  it  is  said  :  "  In  the  year  that  king  Uzziah  died  I 
saw  the  Lord  seated  on  a  throne,  high  and  lifted  up " 
(Isa.  vi.  1).  Paul  speaks  to  the  Athenians  of  feeling  after 
God  and  finding  Him,  though  He  is  not  far  from  any  one 
of  us  (Acts  xvii.  27);  while  Job  says:  "Who  can  by 
searching  find  out  God  ? "  (xi.  7).  Scripture  speaks  of 
possessing  the  Spirit  of  God  in  tlie  soul,  and  then  it  says : 
"Who  can  measure  the  spirit  of  the  Lord?"  (Isa.  xl.  13). 
These  contradictories  explain  themselves.  Scripture  does 
not  say  in  what  sense  God  may  be  seen  and  may  not  be 
seen,  how  He  may  be  known  and  may  not  be  known.  It 
assumes  tliat  men  themselves  understand  this,  and  merely 
alludes  to  tlie  two  facts  as  things  undoubted  in  men's 
thought  and  experience. 

y 

2.    The  Ussence  and  the  Attributes  of  God. 

With  respect  to  what  Scripture  teaches  of  this  God 
who  may  and  may  not  be  known,  two  things  are  in  view 
here — first,  what  may  be  known  of  the  essence  of  God  ; 
and  second,  wliat  may  be  known  of  His  attributes,  or  of 
(rod  Himself.  As  to  the  essence  of  God,  Scripture  teaclies 
directly  in  the  New  Testament  and  assumes  in  the  Old 
that  God  is  Spirit.  Christ  says,  "  God  is  Spirit,  and  they 
that  woiship  Him  must  worship  Him  in  spirit  and  in 
truth  "  (John  iv.  24).  J>ut  tlie  same  trutli  is  presupposed 
in  the  Old  Testament  in  many  ways  ;  for  example,  in  the 
prohibition  to  represent  God  by  any  material  likeness ;  and 


GOD  ABSOLUTE  AND  PERSONAL         83 

also,  not  obscurely  in  the  history  of  man's  creation,  in  wliich 
God  is  said  to  have  formed  man's  material  part  out  of  the 
dust  of  the  ground,  but  to  have  drawn  his  spiritual  part  out 
of  Himself ;  and  again,  perliaps  in  tlie  name  given  to  the 
angels  as  spirits,  so7is  of  God,  i.e.  altogether  in  His  likeness, 
both  as  to  essence  and  as  to  moral  nature.  Yet  more 
perspicuously  the  spirituality  of  God  is  seen  to  be  an  idea 
underlying  all  Old  Testament  thought  from  a  significant 
passage  in  Isa.  xxxi.  3  :  "  Now  the  Egyptians  are  men,  and 
not  God ;  and  their  horses  flesh,  and  not  spirit."  There 
the  parallelism  shows  that  man  is  to  God  as  flesh  to  spirit ; 
that  as  man  is  a  corporeal  being,  so  God  is  spiritual.  It 
has  indeed  been  maintained  that  the  Old  Testament,  or  the 
Israelites,  at  flrst  at  least  contemplated  God  as  possessed 
of  a  corporeal  form,  and  that  gradually  the  conception  of 
Him  clarified  till  He  was  recognised  as  formless  spirit. 
It  is  difficult  to  see  how  such  a  theory  can  be  fairly 
maintained  in  the  face  of  the  above  passages.  Some  of 
the  early  Fathers,  such  as  Tertullian,  fancied  that  God 
possessed  a  form ;  yet  they  denied  it  to  be  material. 

As  to  what  is  taught  about  this  Being  Himself,  that 
may  be  found  in  Scripture  in  various  forms — cliiefly  two, 
namely,  statements  or  assumptions  regarding  God,  and 
names  applied  to  God.  It  will  be  found,  I  think,  that  all 
other  designations  of  God,  and  all  other  assertions  respect- 
ing Him,  and  all  other  attributes  assigned  to  Hift-i,  may  be 
embraced  under  one  or  other  of  the  two  names  given  to 
God  in  the  opening  chapters  of  Genesis.  What  is  taught 
of  God  in  these  chapters  is,  first,  that  God  is  the  absolute 
Cause  and  the  absolute  Lord  of  all  things — heavens  and 
earth ;  which  terms  embrace  not  only  the  upper  and  lower 
matter,  but  the  superior  and  inferior  spirits.  And,  second, 
that  God  is  the  absolute  personality — over  against  finite 
personalities,  not  absorbing  personalities  in  Himself,  nor  by 
His  personality  excluding  personalities  besides  Himself. 

This  personality  is  self-conscious — it  is  not  undeter- 
mined till  it  becomes  what  it  is  in  the  finite  personality, 
but    it  is    free    before    the    finite   comes   int(j    being,   and 


84    THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

conscious  of  it.sclf  as  over  against  the  finite  when  it  has 
called  the  latter  into  existence.  Before  the  existence  of 
the  finite  it  clelil)orately  purposes  to  make  it: — "Let  there 
be  liglit " ;  "  lot  us  make  man  "  ;  "  let  him  have  dominion." 
And  when  created,  it  conceives  of  itself  in  opposition  to 
the  finite : — "  Hast  tlion  eaten  of  the  tree  of  which  1 
commanded  tliee  not  to  eat  ?  /  will  put  enmity  between 
thee  and  the  woman." 

This  person  is  perfectly  ethical,  and  is  in  an  ethical 
relation  of  undisturbed  love-communion  with  the  innocent 
spiritual  beings  whom  He  has  made. 

To  speak  shortly,  the  truths  contained  in  these  names, 
the  names  by  which  God  is  known  in  the  account  of 
Creation,  are  these  two — first,  thatjGpdJs  thejgower  to 
whom  the  world  belongs;  and,  second,  that  He  is-at  the 
same  time  the  Eternal,  the  Person  who  stands  in  a  fellow- 
ship of  love  with  the  spiritual  beings  in  the  world.  ^  The 
first  truth  is  contained  in  the  name  Elohim  and  the  cognate 
names :  the  second,  in  the  name  Jehovah  and  others  allied 
to  it ;  and  all  other  assertions  regarding  God  in  Scripture 
may  be  reduced  to  one  or  other  of  these  two.  But  of  this 
more  hereafter. 

There  is  no  reason  to  deny  that  some  elements  of 
truth,  or  many  elements,  may  have  been  found  in  the 
primeval  Shemitic  religion  held  by  the  ancestors  of 
Abraham,  or  by  himself  before  his  call — fragments  of  a 
primitive  knowledge  of  God  more  or  less  pure,  generalisa- 
tions more  or  less  profound  regarding  God  and  morality, 
hopes  and  aspirations  more  or  less  exalted,  like  those  of 
Job.  "We  cannot  form  a  very  complete  idea  of  the  condi- 
tion. But  these  stages  in  the  development  of  the  know- 
ledge of  God  in  Israel  may  be  detected :  first,  the  primeval 
Shemitic  religion,  in  which  each  family  had  its  particular 
god,  whom  it  worshipped,  if  not  in  images,  at  least  in  con- 
nection with  sensuous  forms,  as  groves,  trees,  pillars. 
Second,  a  very  important  development  from  this  primitive 
Shemitic  religion  wliich  took  place  at  a  far  back  period 

^  See  Hofniaiin,  Schrifthcweis,  p.  75  W. 


DEVELOPMENT    OF    IDEA    OF    GOD  85 

towards  a  high  morality  and  faitli  in  a  spiritual  omni- 
potent God.  This  development  we  know  as  the  call  of 
Abraham  and  tlie  foundation  of  tlie  Patriarclial  relii^ion. 
Third,  even  a  higlier  development  which  took  place  at 
the  end  of  the  Patriarchal  time  and  the  beginning  of  the 
national  life.  This  we  know  as  tlie  legislation  of  Moses, 
in  which  the  spirituality  and  unity  of  God  are  set  forth 
in  tlie  fundamental  laws  of  tlie  constitution.  Jacob  is 
represented  as  having  found  God  in  a  certain  place,  and 
as  rearing  a  pillar,  on  which  he  poured  oil,  as  a  visible 
representation,  if  not  of  God,  yet  of  the  place  of  God. 
The  idea  of  God  as  One  everywhere  present  seems  far  from 
this.  But  all  similitudes  were  forbidden  by  Moses.  The 
second  and  third  of  these  stages  are  not  to  be  regarded 
as  natural  developments  of  the  primary  religion,  for  the 
surrounding  tribes  did  not  share  in  the  development,  but 
sank  deeper  into  idolatries  of  the  most  degrading  kind. 
The  Scriptures  represent  God  as  revealing  Himself  to 
Abraham  and  Moses,  and  there  seems  no  way  of  account- 
ing for  their  knowledge  except  by  considering  this  state- 
ment of  Scripture  to  mean  that  God  revealed  Himself  to 
these  men  in  another  manner  than  to  the  Gentiles. 

The  distinctive  title  of  God  as  known  and  worshipped 
by  the  patriarchs — El  Shaddai,  God  Almighty ;  El  Elyon, 
Most  High  God — shows  that  the  omnipotence  of  God  was 
the  attribute  to  which  most  prominence  was  given.  This 
was  very  natural,  seeing  that  the  primary  idea  of  God  in 
the  Shemitic  mind  was  i30wc)\  But  if  the  idea  of  the  unity 
of  God  was  not  already  in  the  worshipper's  mind,  these 
names  were  very  well  fitted  to  suggest  it.  And  in  like 
manner,  if  the  first  commandment  of  the  Decalogue — 
which  beyond  doubt  is  Mosaic — did  not  directly  inculcate 
the  unity,  it  immediately  suggested  it — "  thou  shalt  have 
no  other  gods  with  Me." 

Again,  if  the  second  commandment — "  thou  shalt  not 
make  unto  thee  any  nj^ron  of  anything  in  lieaven  aliove, 
or  in  the  earth  beneath,  to  fall  down  to  them  and  worship 
them,"  did  not  directly  inculcate  the  spirituality  of  God,  it 


86    THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

immediately  suggested  it.  And  there  can  be  no  hesitation 
in  saying  that  all  the  men  of  insight  in  Israel  read  these 
commandments  as  meaning  that  there  was  but  one  God, 
and  that  He  was  a  spiritual  being  who  could  not  be  repre- 
sented under  any  form. 

But  it  is  very  evident  that  two  lines  were  thus  opened 
up,  on  which  there  might  be  divergence  and  conflict  in 
Israel — the  unity  of  God  and  the  spirituality  of  God. 
The  denial  of  the  one,  or  the  failure  to  recognise  it,  led  to 
the  introduction  of  other  gods  along  with  Jehovah,  par- 
ticularly of  Baal ;  and  the  denial  of  the  other  led  to  the 
worship  of  Jehovah  through  sensuous  forms,  particularly 
the  calf.  This  was  made  the  distinctive  form  of  the 
worship  of  the  Northern  Kingdom.  This  officially  sanctioned 
mode  of  ..orshipping  Jehovah  must  not  be  confounded 
with  pure  idolatry,  such  as  the  Baal  worship.  The  one 
not  unnaturally  led  to  the  other;  but  the  prophets  of 
Jehovah  drew  a  clear  distinction  between  the  two,  and, 
tliough  they  denounced  the  calf  worship,  they  did  not  leave 
the  kingdom,  or  hold  that  those  who  practised  it  cut  them- 
selves quite  off  from  being  the  people  of  God.  But  with 
the  Baal  worsliip  they  would  hold  no  terms.  Against  the 
prophets  of  Baal  they  waged  a  war  of  extermination. 
There  is  perhaps  no  more  singular  phenomenon  in  the 
history  of  Israel  than  the  repeated  outbreaks  into  idolatry. 
There  was  even  the  attempt,  under  the  dynasty  of  Omri, 
to  suppress  the  worship  of  Jehovah  and  extirpate  His 
followers  out  of  the  country.  These  repeated  falls  into 
idol  worship,  exhibited  throughout  the  whole  history  of 
Israel,  especially  hi  the  Northern  Kingdom,  but  even  also 
in  the  Southern,  and  there  in  an  aggravated  form  toward 
the  close  of  the  monarchy  under  Manasseh,  require  some 
explanation. 

And,  as  might  be  expected,  the  explanation  that  many 
have  given  lias  been,  that  we  have  in  the  history  of 
Israel  as  established  in  Caaiian  the  spectacle  of  a  people 
slowly  emergmg  by  natural  means  out  of  the  darkness  of 
idolatry   into   the    clear    light   and   freedom  of  a  spiritual 


CONFLICT  WITH  IDOLATRY  87 

monotheism.  The  leaders  of  Uie  people  in  this  splendid 
niarcli,  in  wliich  Israel  were  the  pioneers  of  mankind,  were 
the  prophets.  There  in  Canaan,  and  in  this  people  Israel, 
humanity  achieved  its  most  glorious  triumph ;  it  trod  down 
under  its  feet  those  debasing  embodiments  of  its  own 
passions  and  vices  called  gods ;  and  prostrated  itself  before 
that  loftiest  conception  of  one  spiritual  being,  Lord  of  the 
universe,  who  is  God.  But  the  victory  was  not  reached 
without  many  temporary  defeats ;  and  the  progress  of  the 
conflict  may  be  watched  in  that  history  which  records  the 
changes  from  Jehovah  worship  to  idolatry,  and  from 
idolatry  to  Jehovah  worship,  till,  finally,  the  refining  pro- 
cess of  the  Exile  purified  the  people's  conceptions  of  God,  so 
that  idolatry  utterly  disappeared  from  among  them. 

Now  these  things  are  true  in  this  rep^t/esentation, 
namely,  that  there  was  a  conflict  between  the  worship  of 
Jehovah  and  idolatry ;  that  the  prophets  were  the  leaders 
on  the  side  of  Jehovah ;  that  the  conflict  lasted  during  the 
whole  history  of  Israel ;  and  that  the  victory  was  w^on 
only  under  the  purifying  sorrows  of  the  Exile.  This,  too, 
is  true,  that  in  this  splendid  march  Israel  became  the 
pioneer  of  humanity,  or,  as  it  may  be  put,  humanity  was 
in  Israel  making  this  triumphal  march.  For  humanity  is 
no  doubt  a  unity,  and  no  theory  of  revelation  requires  us 
to  break  up  this  unity  or  deny  that  what  God  was  showing 
to  one  people  and  enabling  it  to  perform,  He  was  achieving 
once  for  all  in  the  race.  So  far  is  this  theory  from  being 
contrary  to  revelation,  that  it  is  itself  part  of  revelation, 
which  teaches  that  God  founded  His  Church  once  for  all  in 
Abraham ;  that  He  took  the  Jewish  people  into  His 
covenant  of  salvation,  not  for  themselves  merely,  but  for 
the  salvation  of  the  world.  All  this  is  certainly  true,  and 
there  may  even  be  more  truth  still  in  the  representation. 
For  unquestionably  such  a  conflict  could  never  have  been 
fought  unless  there  had  been  many  born  idolaters  among 
the  mass  of  the  people,  unless  large  masses  of  the  general 
surface  of  the  nation  had  been  continuously  sunk  in 
idolatrous  doctrines,  and  the  light  of  the  true  faith  in  its 


88    THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

pmity  li.ttl  .sliono  only  on  tliose  elements  that  rose  up 
high  ahove  the  conniion  level.  The  history  throughout 
its  whole  length  shows  a  polluted  stream  of  idolatrous 
worship.  They  were  idolatrous  in  Canaan  ;  even  David's 
wife  had  teraphim  ;  they  were  idolatrous  in  the  wilderness ; 
they  were  idolatrous  in  Egypt ;  they  had  been  idolatrous 
in  Ur  of  the  Chaldees.  But  this  is  what  is  false  in  the 
representation  above  given,  that  the  struggle  was  carried 
on  in  the  field  of  natural  religion.  What  natural  religion 
contributed  was  the  idolatry.  The  worship  of  the  spiritual 
God  came  from  revelation. 

The  case  can  be  accounted  for  best  by  supposing  the 
Jehovah  worship  something  impressed  from  without,  and 
the  mass  of  the  people  only  imperfectly  penetrated  by  it. 
The  conflict  itself  came  to  a  head  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel, 
under  the  rule  of  the  monarchs  of  the  house  of  Omri.  That 
vigorous  ruler,  more  intent  on  strengthening  his  kingdom  by 
alliances  without  than  by  purity  of  national  faith  at  home, 
had  entered  into  treaties  with  the  kingdoms  about,  especially 
the  Syrian,  and  married  his  son  to  Jezebel,  a  daughter  of 
Ethbaal  the  king  of  Sidon.  Ahab  was  not  so  much  vicious 
as  weak  ;  one  who,  like  a  wilful  child  when  refused  his  wishes, 
fell  sick,  and  would  not  eat.  And  thus  he  fell  completely 
under  the  guidance  of  his  self  willed  and  unscrupulous  wife. 
At  her  instigation  he  introduced  the  worship  of  BaaL 
Baal  worship  became  thus  a  State  religion.  For  a  time, 
probably,  it  subsisted  peaceably  side  by  side  with  the 
worship  of  Jehovah.  But  collisions  naturally  ensued 
between  the  partisans  of  the  two,  and  the  royal  po\ver 
seems  to  have  been  used  to  put  down  the  worship  of 
Jehovah.  An  order  was  issued  for  the  murder  of  Jehovah's 
prophets,  and  the  throwing  down  of  His  altars.  This  is 
nowhere  expressly  recorded.  But  Elijah,  who  alone  of 
the  Lord's  prophets  escaped,  says  :  "  The  children  of  Israel 
have  forsaken  Thy  covenant,  and  thrown  down  Thine  altars, 
and  slain  Thy  proi)hets  with  the  sword;  and  I,  even  I 
only,  am  left;  and  they  seek  my  life,  to  take  it  away" 
(1   Kings  xix.    10).      The  history   here  is   very  defective, 


JEHOVAH    AS    GOD    OF    ISRAEL  89 

but  the  reprcseiitatiuii  of  Uu)  piopliet  is  corroborated  by 
a  statement  given  as  made  by  Obadiab,  wbo  represents 
himself  as  hiding  one  hundred  of  Jehovah's  prophets  by 
tifty  in  caves. 

The  commanding  genius  of  this  era  was  Elijah.  In 
the  long  period  from  the  Judges  to  the  times  of  Elijah 
and  the  downfall  of  the  house  of  Onni,  proceedings  were 
going  on  of  which  no  record  has  been  preserved. 

David  was  a  fervent  Jehovist.  Solomon  perhaps  was 
not  fervent  in  any  direction.  He  can  hardly  have  been  a 
theoretical  monotheist  when  he  erected  temples  to  the 
deities  of  his  wives.  Nor  can  Ahab,  when  he  raised  a 
house  to  the  Sidonian  Baal  served  by  his  wife.  Still  Ahab 
called  all  his  sons  by  the  name  of  Jehovah.  There  was 
evidently  great  want  of  clearness  of  thought  in  men's 
minds. 

It  is  very  useful  for  us  if  we  can  here  and  there  find 
an  epoch  in  the  course  of  events  signalising  a  new  turn 
and  a  new  victory  in  the  higher  conception  of  God.  We 
have  such  an  epoch  in  the  reign  of  Ahab  and  the  downfall 
of  the  house  of  Omri  before  Jehu. 

What  is  included  in  the  expression  Jehovah,  God  of 
Israel,  has  been  much  disputed  by  modern  writers,  as  we 
have  said,  and  we  have  already  remarked  that  we  must 
take  into  account  the  existence  of  various  elements  in 
Israel  since  its  settlement  in  Canaan.  In  Israel,  as  history 
deals  with  it,  there  were  sections  differing  very  widely 
from  one  another  in  culture  and  morals ;  and  when  it  is 
asked  what  is  meant  by  saying  Jehovah  is  God  of  Israel, 
the  answer  may  be  that  it  meant  dilferent  things  among 
diri'erent  classes,  or  to  different  minds.  History  or 
prophecy  may  bring  to  light  this  divergence.  ]^ut  it 
seems  clear,  as  we  have  said,  that  the  phrase  meant 
f^t.  ]pn«t^^4t^.-~Jaj\np1  Yi^^k  to  worsliip  wa — otlior  God  but 
Jehovah.  Unquestionably  the  people  entered  upon  national 
existence  with  the  consciousness  of  having  been  delivered 
or  redeemed  from  Egypt  l)y  Jehovah.  He  was  not 
unknown  to   tlie    people   before   tliis  deliverance,  but   nuw 


90    THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

He  had  made  tlicm  free,  and  created  them  a  peo])lc.  Tliey 
owed  their  existence  to  Him,  and  He  was  their  God.  This 
was  the  positive  fact ;  but  no  deductions  are  drawn  from 
the  fact  in  reference  to  other  gods,  nor  are  any  general 
conceptions  as  to  Godhead  connected  with  it.  Each 
separate  people  about  Israel  had  its  national  god,  and 
one  god  worshipped  did  not  necessarily  imply  the  belief 
in  the  existence  of  no  other  gods :  "  For  all  the  nations 
walk  every  one  in  the  name  of  his  god,"  says  the  prophet 
Micah,  "and  we  will  walk  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  our 
God  for  ever  and  ever"  (iv.  5).  The  separate  peoples, 
while  worshipping  each  its  own  god,  did  not  deny  the 
existence  of  the  gods  of  their  neighbours — though  they  may 
have  considered  their  own  the  most  powerful.  And  it  is 
probable,  as  we  said,  that  many  in  Israel  stood  on  no  higher 
platform  than  this,  that  J^liovah  was  God  of  Israel,  while 
Chemosh  was  god  of  Amnion.  But  it  is  certain,  at  least, 
that  the  national  consciousness  was  at  one  with  the 
prophets  on  this  point,  that  Jehovah  was  God  of  Israel. 
This  was  a  common  faith,  though  it  was,  of  course,  a  faith 
that  might  be  held  in  very  different  senses,  that  is,  with 
very  different  conceptions  of  the  Being  called  Jeliovah,  as 
we  perceive  from  the  prophets  Amos  and  Hosea.  The  first 
commandment  might  seem  to  leave  the  question  whether 
there  were  gods  besides  Jehovah  undecided,  for  it  merely 
prohibits  the  w^orship  of  other  gods  in  Israel.^    By  mention- 

^  The  question  is  one  of  great  interest,  What  deduction  are  we  entitled  to 
draw  from  the  words,  "Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  Me  "  ? 

If  we  looked  at  tlie  Commandments  as  simple  objective  revelation  and 
as  ordinances  given  to  Moses,  without,  so  to  speak,  any  exercise  of  his  own 
mind,  then  perhaps  questions  need  not  be  raised  about  the  enigmatical  form, 
"Thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  Me."  But  if  we  suppose  tiiat  the 
mind  of  Moses  concurred  in  this  revelation  and  was  not  inactive,  but  that  the 
commands  came  through  his  mind,  just  as  the  revelation  to  Amos  or  any  of 
the  prophets  was  reached  not  without  all  that  activity  of  mind  which  we 
cannot  help  perceiving,  then  the  question,  how  the  command  took  this  shape, 
and  what  is  implied  in  it,  at  once  rises.  The  command  is  unique  in  antiquity. 
What  induced  Moses,  tlu;  founder  of  the  new  religion,  to  give  it  this  shape  ? 
It  must  have  been  his  conception  of  what  Jehovah  was.  It  has  been 
.suggested  that  it  arose  from  the  idea  that  Jehovah  was  a  'jealous  God.'  But 
if  Moses  conceived  Jehovah  as  a  jealous  God,  which  He  is  often  named,  this 


QUESTION    OF    THE    SOLE    GODHEAD  91 

ing  other  gods  it  might  even  appear  to  a.(hiiit  tlicir  existence, 
at  least  it  might  be  tliunght  not  to  rise  to  the  atlirmation 
of  Monotheism.  But  in  like  manner,  as  we  have  already 
noticed,  the  seventh  commandment  prohibits  merely  Israel 
from  committing  adultery,  and  the  sixth  from  doing  murder  ; 
they  contain  no  hint  that  these  injunctions  have  any  uni- 
versal validity,  and  are  fundamental  laws  of  human  well- 
being.  A  Shemitic  mind,  we  repeat,  would  rise  to  general 
conceptions  such  as  we  cherish  very  slowly ;  and  while 
practically  Jeliovah  was  the  only  God  to  the  Hebrew,  he 
might  not  have  risen  to  the  theoretical  notion  that  He  was 
God  alone.      But  one  with  such  a  practical  faith  in  Jehovah 

c©nceptioii  only  throws  the  difficulty  a  step  further  back.  How  did  lie 
conceive  Him  as  jealous?  Jealousy  is  the  renction  of  the  consciousness  of 
one's  self — of  being  what  he  is,  when  this  consciousness  is  hurt  or  touched. 
How  did  Moses  fancy  that  the  presence  of  other  gods  would  wound  Jehovah's 
consciousness  of  Himself?  What  conception  had  Moses  of  Jehovah's  nature 
which  would  make  him  attribute  jealousy  to  Him  ?  The  deities  of  the 
nations  were  not  jealous.  They  were  sometimes  contemptuous,  sharing  the 
spirit  of  the  nations  themselves  ;  but  from  all  we  observe  they  were  perfeclly 
tolerant  of  the  existence  of  other  deities  beside  them.  With  Jehovah  it  was 
otherwise.  This  intolerance  of  His  requires  some  explanation,  that  is,  some 
explanation  of  Moses'  way  of  conceiving  Him  which  made  him  impose  upon 
the  people  such  a  law. 

The  explanation  must  lie  in  his  conception  of  Jehovah's  nature — His 
ethical  nature.  Certainly  Moses  regarded  Jehovah  as  the  God  of  righteous- 
ness. When  he  sat  and  judged  the  people,  he  did  so  in  Jehovah's  name — 
he  only  interpreted  and  expressed  His  mind.  He  was  the  guardian  of  right 
and  moral  order.  Hence  the  curious  phrase,  that  the  people  were  to  bring 
their  causes  before  Elohim,  when  they  came  to  the  priests  or  judges  for 
decisions.  But  mere  ethical  quality  in  Jehovah  will  not  explain  the  ex- 
clusiveness,  unless  on  the  supposition  that  this  differentiated  Him  from 
other  gods,  who  were  not  ethical,  or  else  that  He  was  ethical  in  such  degree 
that  He  was  the  one  Being  that  men  should  worship.  When  the  form  of 
the  other  commandments  is  considered,  the  natural  conclusion  is  that  Moses 
was  a  monotheist,  and  not  merely  what  is  called  a  monolatrist.  The 
peculiar  thing  about  Israel  is  not  tliat  it  had  one  God,  but  that  it  liad-an 
evil  conscience  when  it  served  other  godg-  This  is_n?iiquc-  The  mere 
existence  of  a  law  will  hardly  account  for  th's.  No  doubt  the  law  had  been 
reinforced  by  the  history,  by  the  redemption  which  their  God  had  wrought 
for  the  people.  At  all  events  we  must  attribute  to  the  Exodus  the  })lanting 
in  the  popular  mind  of  the  truth  that  Jehovah  was  God  of  Israel.  So  far  as 
we  see,  Israel  never  had  any  native  God  but  Jehovah.  If  it  fell  into  the 
worship  of  the  Baals  as  local  deities,  it  found  these.  No  proper  uame  is 
compounded  with  such  a  name  as  Astarte. 


92  THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

sluod  to  Iliiii  iiiucli  iis  l)clievci'.s  in  the  unity  of  God  siand 
to  God  iKiw.  Tlio  icli<^ioii  of  Lsiiiol  was  practicvil,  not 
speculative ;  and  while  a  practical  Monotheism  prevailed,  and 
i^ave  rise  to  all  that  profound  religious  life  which  we  see 
reflected  in  such  men  as  Moses,  and  Samuel,  and  David, 
and  the  prophets,  it  perhaps  needed  that  internal  contiict 
which  arose  through  the  slowness  of  the  popular  mind, 
;ind  that  outward  collision  with  idolatrous  nations  which 
occurred  in  the  days  of  the  great  prophets  from  Isaiah 
downwards,  to  bring  into  speculative  or  theoretical  clearness 
the  doctrines  of  the  oneness  and  the  spirituality  of  God. 
My  impression  is  that  this  contiict,  whether  within  the 
State  or  with  foreign  nations  without,  did  not  suggest  to 
the  prophets  the  doctrines  of  God  which  they  express,  but 
only  furnished  the  occasion  which  demanded  the  expression 
of  them. 

Perhaps  we  lay  too  much  stress  upon  the  meaning 
in  religion  of  a  mere  theoretical  Monotheism,  i.e.  upon  this, 
that  the  worshipper  had  in  his  mind  the  idea  that  the 
Deity  he  stood  before  was  God  alone.  Probably  even  now 
this  feeling  is  little  present  to  the  mind  of  worshippers.  It 
is  what  God  is  to  the  worshipper,  and  what  are  His  attri- 
butes in  Himself,  that  is  important,  not  whether  there  be 
other  beings  to  be  worshipped.  Of  course,  at  other  times 
we  have  in  our  minds  the  fact  that  the  Being  we  worship 
is  God  alone ;  and  this  no  doubt  inliuences  the  mind  when 
it  conies  to  the  act  of  worship,  though  the  idea  be  not  present 
in  the  act.  And  perhaps  this  consideration  may  lead  us  to 
judge  more  favourably  of  the  worship  even  of  heathen  and 
[Mjlytlieistic  nations.  As  a  rule,  the  individual  worshipper 
did  not  adore  more  gods  than  one.  He  selected  some  one 
of  the  deities  worshipped  in  his  country.  Practically  this 
god  was  the  only  one  to  him.  He  gave  this  god  his  adora- 
tion, and  sought  from  him  alone  tlie  help  he  needed. 
Peligiously,  his  mind  towards  tliis  deity  was  just  as  if  no 
other  deity  existed.  Even  when  he  admitted  the  existence 
of  other  deities,  they  took,  in  regard  to  the  deity  he 
worsliipped,  a  lower  place.      His  god  was  the  supreme  god. 


TERMS    USED    OF    HEATHEN    GODS  93 

and  the  otlicrs  were  merely  his  ugeiils,  or,  it  ini^lit  be, 
intercessors  with  him  for  the  wors]H[)])er.  Cyrus,  when  he 
conquered  Babylon,  restored  to  their  ancient  seats  the  gods 
which  had  been  collected  there  by  the  previous  king,  aiid 
he  begs  that  these  minor  gods  would  intercede  with  the 
supreme  God  Bel  for  him  and  his  son  Cambyses.  Both  in 
Egypt  and  in  Babylon  there  is  visible  a  tendency  to  elevate 
one  deity  into  a  supreme  place, — not  always  the  same  deity 
by  name, — and  to  concentrate  on  one  all  the  attributes  of 
all  the  others,  so  that  the  one  embodies  the  exliaustive 
conception  of  Deity. 

There  are  various  classes  of  passages  in  which  the 
gods  of  the  nations  are  mentioned :  one  class  consists  of 
passages  put  into  the  mouth  of  persons  whose  history  or 
conduct  is  being  described  by  Old  Testament  writers.  Thus 
in  Judg.  xi.  23,  24,  Jephthah  is  represented  as  saying  to 
the  king  of  the  Ammonites  :  "  So  now  Jehovah  the  God 
of  Israel  hath  dispossessed  the  Amorites  from  before  His 
people  Israel,  and  shouldest  thou  possess  them  ?  Wilt  not 
thou  possess  that  which  Chemosh  thy  god  giveth  tliee 
to  possess  ?  "  Another  class  of  passages  consists  of  ex- 
pressions used  by  Old  Testament  writers  themselves  in 
which  the  gods  of  the  nations  are  referred  to,  and  Jehovah 
is  contrasted  with  them,  or  said  to  be  superior  to  them, 
and  the  like.  Now  in  estimating  all  these  passages  we 
must  take  the  state  of  thought  in  those  ages  into  account, 
and  the  condition  of  religion  actually  existing  in  the  world 
at  the  time.  Even  the  passage  in  Judges  can  hardly  show 
that  Jephthah  conceded  any  existence  to  Chemosh.  He 
could  hardly  speak  otherwise  than  he  did  to  one  whose 
national  god  Chemosh  was.  Jeremiah  himself,  as  we  have 
seen,  uses  phraseology  analogous :  "  Woe  to  thee,  0  Moab : 
the  people  of  Chemosh  perisheth  "  (xlviii.  4G);  and  again: 
"  Hath  Israel  no  sons,  hath  he  no  heir  ?  Why  then  doth 
Milcom  inherit  Gad,  and  his  (i.e.  Moloch's)  people  dwell  in 
his  cities?"  (xlix.  1).  Evidently  such  language  means 
nothing  in  Jeremiah's  mouth.  It  is  argued,  however,  that 
thou  oil  in  the  mouth   of  such  men  as  Jeremiah  such  ex- 


94    THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

].n'ssi«ins  liave  no  inoaiiiiig,  reposing  merely  on  the  beliei 
and  the  eomlitioii  of  things  in  Moab  itself,  and  on  the 
notorious  faet  that  Cheniosh  was  worshipped  there,  it  may 
liave  had  meaning  iu  the  popular  mind  ;  and  that,  though 
in  later  times  such  phraseology  had  merely  become  a 
eurrent  mode  of  speech,  with  little  significance,  at  the 
time  when  it  first  arose  it  must  have  expressed  the  belief 
in  the  existence  of  Chemosh.  It  is  no  doubt  difficult 
to  estimate  the  value  of  this  kind  of  language.  But  it 
may  be  said,  I  think,  that  the  use  of  it  is  far  from  con- 
clusive as  to  the  belief  in  the  reality  of  the  gods  spoken 
of.  Take  a  passage  from  the  Chronicles,  a  very  late  book, 
probably  of  the  age  of  Alexander  the  Great,  the  end  of  the 
fourth  century  before  our  era  (2  Chr.  xxviii.  23).  Speak- 
ing of  Ahaz,  the  writer  says  that  he  sacrificed  to  the  gods 
of  Damascus,  who  had  smitten  him,  saying :  "  Because  the 
gods  of  the  kings  of  Syria  helped  them,  therefore  will 
I  sacrifice  to  them,  that  they  may  help  me."  But  the 
writer  adds :  "  But  they  were  the  ruin  of  him  and  of  all 
Israel." 

It  is  certain  that  at  that  time  of  day  neither  the 
Chronicler  nor  any  educated  man  in  Israel  ascriljed  reality 
to  any  object  called  god  except  the  God  of  Israel.  In 
ancient  times  a  stranger  must  attach  himself  to  some  tribe 
or  family  in  order  to  be  protected.  But  attachment  to  a 
tribe  or  family  meant  partaking  in  its  sacra  —  its  religious 
rites ;  for  this  was  what  constituted  a  tribe's  distinction, 
or  that  of  a  family.  Hence  the  stranger  who  went  to 
a  foreign  country  must  perforce  take  part  in  the  religion 
of  the  country  and  serve  its  gods.  A  great  deal  has  been 
made  of  an  expression  used  by  David  (1  Sam.  xxvi.  19). 
Appealing  to  Saul  not  to  pursue  him  out  of  the  country, 
he  says  :  "  They  have  driven  me  out  this  day  from  abiding 
iu  the  inheritance  of  the  Loid  (i.e.  the  land  of  Israel), 
saying,  Go  serve  other  gods."  According  to  these  words, 
abiding  in  a  foreign  land  is  equivalent  to  serving  other 
gods.  But,  again,  we  are  sup[»lied  witli  analogous  phrase- 
ology in  Jeremiah — the  man  who  connselled  the  exiles  in 


THEORETICAL    MONOTHEISM  95 

Babylon  to  build  liouses  and  plant  vineyards,  to  seek  the 
peace  of  the  city  whitlier  they  had  been  carried  captive, 
and  to  '' lira II  unto  the  Lord  for  it,  for  in  the  peace  thereof 
shall  ye  liave  i)eace "  (xxix.  5).  While  men  may  pray 
unto  the  Lord  in  foreign  lands,  He  threatens  Israel : 
"  Tlierefore  will  I  cast  you  forth  out  of  this  land  into  the 
land  that  ye  know  not  .  .  .  and  there  shall  ye  serve  other 
gods"  (Jer.  xvi.  13).  And  similarly  in  Deut.  iv.  28: 
"  The  Lord  shall  scatter  you  among  the  nations  .  .  .  and 
there  ye  shall  serve  gods,  the  work  of  men's  hands,  wood 
and  stone."  The  phraseology  rests  merely  on  the  fact 
that  in  foreign  lands  other  gods  were  worshipped;  it 
contains  no  proof  that  these  gods  had  any  reality.  At 
most  it  might  be  supposed  to  imply  that  Jehovah  was 
God  only  of  Israel,  and  could  not  be  found  in  a  foreign 
land.  It  is  possible  that  the  phrase  might  have  had  this 
meaning ;  but  it  had  no  such  sense  in  Jeremiah's  days,  for 
he  counsels  the  exiles  to  pray  unto  the  Lord  for  the  peace 
of  the  land  of  their  exile. 

It  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  from  Jeremiah  down- 
wards there  are  abundant  expressions  of  a  theoretical  / 
Monotheism.  The  circumstances  of  the  prophets  from 
Isaiah  onwards  differed  from  those  of  the  earlier  prophets. 
The  great  prophets,  such  as  Isaiah  and  Jeremiah,  were  con- 
fronted by  the  world  powers,  and  the  question  of  the  relation 
of  Jehovah  to  them  was  forced  upon  them.  These  powers 
were  embodiments  of  idolatry,  and  they  were  the  oppressors 
of  Israel.  The  antithesis  between  their  gods  and  the  God 
of  Israel  pressed  itself  upon  men ;  the  relation  of  Jehovah 
to  the  world,  and  His  relation  to  the  idols,  the  gods  of 
tlie  v/orld,  could  not  be  evaded.  The  prophets  solved  the 
question  of  the  conquest  of  Israel  by  the  world  power,  by 
the  great  conception  that  the  world  power  was  Jehovah's 
instrument  to  chastise  His  people — the  Assyrian  was  tlie 
rod  of  His  anger,  Nebuchadnezzar  was  His  servant.  And 
tins  was  already  also  a  solution  of  the  relation  of  the  idols 
to  Jehovah.  It  was  not  the  idols,  but  Jehovah  that  gave 
Assyria  and  Babylon  its  victories.      Much  more,  it  was  not 


06  TTTK    THEOT.orJY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTA^IENT 

(,]ic  i(l(»ls  lliat  liad  raisLMl  ii])  Cyrus  to  destroy  tlic  idolatrous 
l^abylon.  And  wIumi  these  powers  forgot  that  they  were 
hut  iustruiuents  in  tlie  Lord's  liand,  they  were  acting  as  if 
Mic  saw  sliould  magnify  itself  against  liim  who  shook  it, 
or  as  if  fhc  rod  >^lioiil(l  my  it  was  not  mood  (Isa.  x.  15). 
])Ut  even  in  this  age  tlic  same  way  of  speaking  still  pre- 
vailed,— of  speaking  of  the  gods  of  the  nations  as  if  they 
liad  reality  ;  as  St.  Paul  also  speaks  of  idols  at  one  time 
as  '  notliing  in  the  world,'  and  at  another  time  as  'devils.' 

Perhaps  the  citation  of  these  passages  may  suggest  that 
some  caution  is  necessary  in  founding  inferences  upon 
expressions  which  at  first  sight  might  seem  to  imply  belief 
in  other  gods  besides  Jehovah,  on  the  part  of  those  who 
used  them. 


3.   The  Unity  of  God. 

The  simplest  notion  of  God  among  the  Semitic  peoples 
was,  as  we  have  said,  the  idea  of  poiuer,  force.  If  we  con- 
sider ourselves  at  liberty  to  inquire  how  this  idea  was 
reached,  we  should  presume  that  it  was  through  the  pro- 
cesses and  phenomena  of  nature.  The  power  that  worked  in 
Nature,  that  changed  her  face,  that  conducted  the  gigantic 
movements  of  the  heavens  above  and  the  waters  beneath, 
was  God.  There  cannot  be  a  doubt  that  among  the  peoples 
about  Israel  tliere  appeared  the  tendency  to  confound  Nature 
herself  with  God,  to  regard  individual  forces  in  Nature  as 
gods.  We  do  not  find  such  a  thing  among  the  Jews,  except 
occasionally  and  by  imitation.  But  how  shall  we  regard 
this  tendency  ?  As  a  degeneration  of  a  Monotheism 
retained  by  Israel  ?  Or  as  a  Polytheism  out  of  which 
Israel  rose  to  Monotheism  ?  Was  the  first  step  to  regard 
the  forces  of  nature  as  gods,  and  the  next  to  al^stract  and 
unite  the  forces  into  one,  and  spiritualising  this  force  name 
it  God  ?  Or  was  the  tendency  downward,  to  break  up  this 
grand  simple  power  into  a  multitude  of  forces,  and  out  of 
the  one  God  to  frame  many  gods  ?  The  (piestion  probably 
cannot  be  answered  witli   certainty,  either  on  Shemitic  or 


GOD    ALWAYS    PERSONAL  97 

on  Indo-Germanic  data.  lUit  in  point  of  fact  wc  find  Israel 
aii:reemg  with  the  related  peoples  in  the  Name  it  gave  to 
(Jod  and  tlie  idea  it  liad  of  Him,  and  occasionally  falling 
into  their  way  of  idolatry,  which  identified  some  natural 
force  with  God,  as  tlie  force  resident  in  the  sun,  or  tlie 
generative  ])(nver  of  nature,  etc. 

If  tlie  idea  of  a  Supreme  Being  was  first  impressed 
on  men,  or  impressed  anew  after  being  lost,  by  tlie  opera- 
tions of  some  single  great  force  in  nature,  they  would 
be  very  apt  to  identify  this  force  with  the  Being,  or  to 
regard  the  two  as  inseparable.  Such  an  identification  would 
operate  in  two  ways  on  the  conception  of  God.  It  might 
prevent  the  mind  rising  easily  to  the  unity  of  God.  And 
it  might  make  it  slow  to  reach  the  idea  of  the  spirituality 
of  God.  This  was  but  a  single  force,  there  were  many  ;  the 
Being  who  so  showed  His  power  might  not  be  the  only 
powerful  being.  And  the  Being  who  showed  Himself 
through  this  material  symbol  might  not  readily  be  con- 
ceived abstractly  and  unclothed  in  the  physical  energy. 
Yet  He  might  have  to  the  worshipper  a  very  distinct 
personality.  A  pantheistic  conception  of  nature  is  quite 
foreign  to  the  Shemitic  mind.  Hence  even  where  we 
cannot  be  sure  that  the  conception  of  God  in  any  par- 
ticular case  implied  His  unity  or  spirituality,  we  may 
assume  that  His  personality  was  always  part  of  the  con- 
ception. It  is  true  that  in  Homer,  while  some  of  the 
gods  are  undoubtedly  and  always  persons,  otliers  of  them 
appear  sometimes  as  forces  or  phenomena  and  sometimes 
as  persons,  such  as  Iris,  Dream,  etc.,  and  sometimes  even 
Apollo  *  far  darting,'  as  if  the  statue  were  partly  formed 
out  of  the  block,  or  the  living  bird  Iialf  out  of  tlie  shell. 
But  among  the  Shemitic  races  this  condition  does  not 
appear  to  present  itself.     God  is  always  personal. 

Now,  if  we  suppose  that  the  condition  of  the  idea 
of  God  among  the  Shemitic  peoples  prior  to  the  call 
of  Abraham,  or  even  after  his  call,  was  tliis,  that  He 
was  a  personal  i)ower,  there  are  materials  in  it  for  th.i,t 
profound    religious    experience    which    we    know    to    liaAc 

7 


98  THE   THEOLOGY   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

been  liis.  Tlie  power  may  easily  rise  to  omnipotence; 
Ihc  ])(Msniiiility  may  easily  pass  into  spirituality,  and  the 
union  of  these  two  easily  into  unity.  But  we  must  not 
judge  the  ancients  l)y  ourselves.  With  this  Personal 
Power,  Lord  of  men,  ruler  of  nature  —  without  raising 
questions,  as  we  should,  wliether  He  was  Lord  of  all 
men  or  ruler  of  all  nature — there  might  be  a  fellowship, 
and  towards  Him  a  reverence,  and  on  Him  a  dependence, 
and  in  His  intercourse  a  training  and  an  elevation,  that 
together  made  up  the  elements  of  a  fresh  and  deep 
religious  life.  The  personal  bond  to  a  governing  personal 
power — or,  as  it  was  called,  the  covenant — was  the  essence 
of  religious  life.  How  God  by  His  training  of  Abraham 
pimfied  his  faith  and  strengthened  it,  we  see  from  the 
history. 

It  is  probable  that  among  the  family  out  of  which 
Abraham  sprang  tliere  had  come  a  great  degeneration,  or 
at  least  there  prevailed  a  low  condition  of  religion  prior  to 
his  time.  This  is  the  universal  supposition  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. Joshua  in  his  last  speech  exhorts  the  people  thus : 
"  Now  therefore  fear  the  Lord,  and  serve  Him  in  sincerity 
and  in  truth  :  and  put  away  the  gods  which  your  fathers 
served  on  the  other  side  of  the  flood,  and  in  Egypt ;  and 
serve  ye  the  Lord "  (Josh.  xxiv.  1 4).  And  the  same 
appears  from  the  story  of  Jacob's  flight  from  Padan-Aram, 
in  which  his  wife  Rachel  is  represented  as  stealing  the 
gods  of  her  father,  and  carrying  them  with  her  in  her 
flight. 

And  thus  it  is  certain  that  througli  God's  revealing  of 
Himself  to  Abraliam  a  great  purification  and  elevation  took 
place  in  his  conception  of  God.  The  fundamental  thought 
of  God  did  not  alter,  but  it  was  more  firmly  grasped  and 
sharply  conceived,  and  probably  carried  to  such  a  degree  of 
clearness  as  to  involve,  if  not  the  spirituality,  at  least  the 
unity  of  God.  That  fundamental  thought  common  to  all 
the  Shemitic  peoples  was,  as  we  Iiave  seen,  'power,  expressed 
in  the  words  El,  Elohim ;  but  we  are  expressly  informed 
that  the  prevailing  conceptinji   of  (lod  in  the  Patriarchal 


PLURAL    FORM    OF    NAME    FOR    GOD  99 

age  was  tlnit  of  almiglitincss : — "  I  appeared  to  your  fathers 
as  M  Shaddai — God  Almighty"  This  is  a  potentiation  of 
the  simple  idea  of  mighty,  which  seems  to  carry  with  it 
the  exchision  of  other  powers,  and  to  lead  directly  to  the 
conception  of  the  Unity  of  God.  We  should  probably  be 
right  in  considering  the  Patriarchal  idea  of  God  as  em- 
bracing these  two  ideas  within  it. 

The  plural  form  of  the  word  Elohim  might  be  supposed 
to  have  some  bearing  on  the  question  of  unity.  And, 
indeed,  by  many  it  has  been  supposed  to  bear  testimony 
to  the  plurality  of  gods  originally  worshipped  among  the 
Shemitic  peoples;  and  by  others,  who  seem  to  consider 
the  name  Elohim  part  of  God's  revelation  of  Himself, 
to  the  plurality  of  persons  in  the  Godhead.  The  real 
force  of  the  plural  termination,  as  we  have  already  said, 
is  not  easy,  indeed,  to  discover.  But  a  few  facts  may 
lead  us  near  it.  In  Ethiopic  the  name  of  God  is  Amldk, 
a  plural  form  also  of  a  root  allied  to  melek  —  a  king. 
All  Shemitic  languages  use  the  plural  as  a  means  of 
heightening  the  idea  of  the  singular ;  the  precise  kind 
of  heightening  has  to  be  inferred  from  the  word.  Thus 
ivater — D^P — is  plural,  from  the  fluidity  and  multiplicity  of 
its  parts;  the  heavens — D^^*^ — from  their  extension.  Of 
a  different  kind  is  the  plural  of  adon — lord,  in  Hebrew, 
which  takes  plural  suffixes  except  in  the  first  person 
singular.  Of  this  kind,  too,  is  the  plural  of  Baal,  even 
in  the  sense  of  owner,  as  when  Isaiah  uses  the  phrase 
V7V^  Dii3X  (i.  3).  Of  the  same  kind  also  is  the  plural 
teraphim,  penates,  consisting  of  a  simple  image.  And  of 
this  kind  probably  is  the  plural  Elohim — a  plural  not 
numerical,  but  simply  enhancive  of  the  idea  of  might.  Thus 
among  the  Israelites  the  might  who  was  God  was  not  an 
ordinary  might,  but  one  peculiar,  lofty,  unique.  Though 
the  word  be  plural,  in  the  earliest  written  Hebrew  its 
predicate  is  almost  universally  singular.  Only  when  used 
of  the  gods  of  the  nations  is  it  construed  with  a  plural 
verb ;  or,  sometimes,  when  the  reference  is  to  the  general 
idea  of  the  Godhead.     This  use  with  a  singular  predicate 


100   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

or  epithet  seems  to  show  that  tlie  phiral  form  is  not  a 
reminiscence  of  a  former  Polytheism.  The  plural  ex- 
pressed a  plenitude  of  might.  And  as  there  seems  no 
trace  of  a  Polytheism  in  the  name,  neitlier  can  it  with  any 
probabihty  be  supposed  to  express  a  plurality  of  persons 
in  the  Godhead.  For  it  cannot  be  shown  tliat  the  word  is 
itself  part  of  God's  revelation ;  it  is  a  word  of  natural 
growth  adopted  into  revelation,  like  other  words  of  the 
Hebrew  language.  And  the  usage  in  the  words  haal,  adon, 
rah,  and  such  like,  similar  to  it  in  meaning,  leads  us  to 
suppose  that  the  plural  is  not  numerical,  as  if  mights,  but 
merely  intensifying  the  idea  of  might.  Nor  can  it  be 
shown  to  be  probable  that  the  doctrine  of  a  plurality  of 
persons  should  have  been  taught  early  in  the  history  of 
revelation.  What  the  proneness  of  mankind  to  idolatry 
rendered  imperative  above  all  and  hrst  of  all,  was  strenuous 
teaching  of  the  Divine  Unity.^ 

4.   The  Doctrine  of  the  sole  Godhead  of  Jehovah  in  later 
Prophecy. 

We  have  noticed  certain  forms  of  speech  used  with 
^ference  to  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel,  which  seemed  to 
suggest  that,  though  God  of  Israel,  and  greater  than  all 
gods.  He  was  not  considered  God  alone.  The  phraseo- 
logy in  which  other  gods  are  spoken  of  may  not  be 
quite  easy  to  estimate  justly.  But  if  writers  on  the 
religion  of  Israel  are  not  unanimous  on  the  question  as  to 
how  such  phraseology  is  to  be  interpreted  in  the  earlier 
books  of  Scripture,  they  are  entirely  at  one  in  the  view 
that  from  Jeremiah  downwards  the  prophets  give  un- 
doubted and  clear  expression  to  a  theoretical  Monotheism. 
The  circumstances  of  the  prophets   from  Isaiah   onwards 

'  It  is  jirobaMy  a  return  to  the  literal  sense  of  the  word  Avhen  the  terra 
Elohim  is  used  of  men  or  angels,  or  of  what  we  call  the  suiiernatural :  "  I 
said,  Ye  are  gods  "  (Ps.  Ixxxii.  6)  ;  "Thou  hast  made  him  a  little  lower  than 
the  Klohim"  (Ps.  viii.  5);  "I  saw  Elohim  coming  up  out  of  the  earth," 
said  by  the  witch  of  Endor  of  the  ghost  of  Samuel  (1  Sam.  xxviii.  13). 


THE   SOLE    GODHEAD    IN    LATER    PROPHECY        101 

differed  from  those  of  the  earlier  prophets.  In  the 
time  of  the  earlier  prophets,  Israel  came  into  connection 
with  nothing  hut  the  petty  States  lying  innnediately 
around.  These  States  were  many,  and  their  gods  many. 
And  over  each  of  them  Jehovah  was  the  Saviour  of 
Israel.  In  point  of  fact  Amos,  the  oldest  of  the  prophets, 
except  in  one  ohscure  passage,  makes  not  the  faintest 
allusion  to  the  gods  of  the  nations ;  he  represents  Jehovah 
as  ruling  immediately  over  all  the  peoples  neighbouring 
on  Israel,  and  chastising  them,  not  only  for  their  offences 
against  Israel,  but  for  their  cruelties  to  one  another. 
Still  this  prophet's  world  was  composed  of  a  multitude 
of  small  peoples — the  world  did  not  yet  form  a  unity  in 
opposition  to  Israel.  But  when  Israel  was  confronted  by 
the  great  empires  of  Assyria  and  Babylon,  empires  which 
virtual^  embraced  the  world  and  presented  it  as  a  unity, 
then  the  question  of  the  relation  of  Jehovah  their  God 
to  this  unity  was  forced  upon  them.  These  empires, 
too,  were  embodiments  of  idolatry ;  for,  of  course,  as  in 
all  ancient  States,  the  culture,  and  the  law,  and  the 
social  fabric  of  the  empire  reposed  on  the  religion.  And 
thus,  when  Israel  was  confronted  with  the  world  as  a 
unity  in  these  empires,  Jehovah  was  felt  to  be  confronted 
also  with  idolatry  as  a  general  faith  and  conception.  And 
thus  the  prophets  were  led  to  form,  or  at  all  events  to 
express,  abstract  and  theoretical  judgments  regarding  these 
matters. 

Now  the  judgments  which  they  do  express  regard- 
ins;  Jehovah  and  the  idols  are  remarkable.  So  soon  as 
Northern  Israel  came  into  collision  with  Assyria,  it  fell 
before  the  great  Eastern  empire ;  and  in  like  manner 
Southern  Israel,  Judah,  succumbed  before  Babylon.  Now, 
if  the  prophets  had  learned  their  conceptions  of  Jehovah 
from  history,  the  natural  inference  would  have  been  that 
the  gods  of  Assyria  and  Bal)ylon  were  more  powerful  than 
Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel.  This  was  tlie  inference  of  the 
foolish  king  Ahaz  wlien  defeated  by  the  Syrians :  "  Be- 
cause the  gods  of  the  kings  of  Syria  help  them,  therefore 


102   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

will  I  sacrifice  to  them,  that  they  may  help  me  "  (2  Chron. 
xxviii.  23).  And  this  was  the  inference  no  doubt  of 
Manasseh  also,  and  of  many  in  Judah  during  its  later 
years,  when  the  worship  of  the  host  of  heaven  and  many 
other  idolatries  were  introduced  from  Assyria  and  Babylon. 
Men  worshipped  the  gods  of  their  conquerors.  But  the 
inference  of  the  prophets  was  a  wholly  different  one. 
They  solved  the  problem  of  Israel's  humiliation  by  the 
idolatrous  nations  on  these  two  principles :  first,  these 
nations  w_erft  .Tpbnyf^,h'p  iTistyjirapnts — they  were  not  more 
powerful  than  the  God  of  Israel,  on  the  contrary,  the 
Assyrian  was  the  rod  in  His  hand  to  chastise  His  people, 
and  Nebuchadnezzar  was  His  servant ;  and,  secondly,  it 
was  because  Jphox?'h_was  holy  and  His  people  sinful_that 
He  gave  them  up  to  the  destroyer.  The  great  events  of 
Israel's  history  did  not  suggest  to  the  prophets  their  con- 
ceptions of  Jehovah.  On  the  contrary,  their  conceptions  of 
Jehovah  abeady  held,  solved  to  them  the  enigma  of  the 
events  that  happened.  But  no  doubt  these  events  also  led 
them  to  express  their  thoughts  of  Jehovah  and  the  idols  in 
a  more  general  and  abstract — one  might  say  almost — 
dogmatic  way. 

Here  an  important  place  belongs  toJhe^Secpnd  Isaiah, 
the  finest,  but  also  the  most  difficult,  part  of  Old  Testament 
prophecy.  Here  the  name  of  Jehovah  has  no  special  mean- 
ing; it  is,the^highest_name  .of,  .God.  Though  the  prophet 
is  a  monotheist  in  the  strictest  sense,  his  Monotheism  is  no 
mere  dead  article  of  belief  or  inoperative  conviction.  It 
is  the  most  living  and  powerful  of  truths  that  Jehovah, 
God  of  Israel,  is  God  alone.  Being  God  alone.  He  must 
make  Himself  known  to  be  God  alone :  "  My  glory  will  I 
not  give  to  another,  neither  My  praise  to  graven  images  " 
(Isa.  xlii.  8).  In  the  words  Jehovah,  God  alone,  is  heard 
the  death  knell  of  all  idolatry :  "  I  have  sworn  by  Myself 
.  .  .  tliat  every  knee  shall  bow"  (Isa.  xlv.  23).  But  on 
another  side  the  sole  Godhead  of  Jehovah  opens  up  wide 
prospects  of  thought  to  the  prophet.  He  who  is  God 
alone    is  God  over  all — He  is  the  God  of  the  nations  as 


DOCTRINE   OF    DEUTERO-ISAIAH  103 

well  as  of  Israel.  And  that  which  He  is  to  Israel  as  God 
of  Israel,  He  must  be  to  the  nations  also  as  their  God. 
His  purposes,  whicli  are  iu  the  main  purposes  of  grace, 
must  extend  to  the  peoples  also  as  well  as  to  Israel.  Yet 
Jehovah  is  primarily  God  of  Israel,  and  He  remains  so 
always.  His  relation  to  the  nations  is  manifested  only 
through  Israel.  Israel  is  His  servant  to  make  Him 
known  to  the  nations,  to  mediate  His  grace  to  all  man- 
kind. 

The  doctrine  of  Jehovah  is  stated  in  the  broadest  and 
most  developed  manner  in  this  section  of  prophecy.  Still 
this  is  done  with  such  religious  fervour,  and  in  a  way  so 
brilliant  with  all  the  hues  of  a  poetical  imagination,  that 
to  state  the  several  points  in  that  doctrine  in  cold  and 
naked  propositions  of  the  mere  intellect,  seems  to  desecrate 
them.  We  need  only  mention  a  few  things,  and  refer  to 
one  or  two  passages. 

J[fiiaovalij,_^d..-J3i-J[srae„l^^  This  is  fre- 

quently stated  explicitly  and  in  so  many  words ;  usually, 
however,  it  is  based  on  certain  kinds  of  evidence,  or  it  takes 
the  form  of  contrasting  Jehovah  with  the  idols.  In  chap. 
xli.  Jehovah  challenges  the  idol  worshipping  nations  to 
meet  Him  before  a  tribunal,  that  a  question  whether  He  or 
the  idols  be  God  may  be  decided :  "  Let  the  nations  renew 
their  strength ;  let  us  come  near  together  to  judgment ! " 
Opening  the  plea  on  His  own  side,  He  asks  them  two 
questions :  "  Who  raised  up  Cyrus  ? "  and,  "  Who  pre- 
dicted it  from  of  old  ? "  The  idol  gods  of  Babylon  have 
hardly  brought  Cyrus  on  the  stage  of  history,  who  will 
lead  Bel  and  Nebo  away  captive  (chap.  xlvi.).  And  if 
they  are  gods,  let  them  show  what  will  happen.  Let 
them  point  to  former  things,  prophecies  already  uttered, 
that  they  may  be  compared  with  events,  and  be  seen  to 
be  true  predictions ;  or  let  them  now  in  the  present 
declare  things  that  are  to  come ;  yea,  let  them  do  good 
or  do  evil,  that  they  may  be  seen  to  have  life  in  them. 
They  are  silent,  and  judgment  is  passed  on  them  that  they 
are  of  nothing  and  their  work  of  nought  (Isa.  xli.   21). 


104   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

111  a  word,  Jehovuh  appeals  to  history  aud  to  prophecy 
In  proof  of  His  sole  Godhead. 

^his  appeal  to  prophecy  fully  justified  Apologetics 
in  making  the  same  appeal,  however  arguments  of  another 
kind  may  be  used  now  in  addition  to  this  order  of 
evidence.  And  no  doubt  the  argument  from  prophecy 
has  considerably  changed  its  form ;  it  is  now  less  an 
argument  based  on  the  literal  fulfilment  of  predictions 
of  contingent  individual  events.  It  has  become  more  an 
argument  from  prophecy  than  one  from  prediction,  an 
argument  based  on  a  broad,  general  movement  of  the 
religious  mind  taught  of  God  in  Israel, — a  movement  that 
revealed  itself  in  religious  presentiments,  in  aspirations 
of  the  pious  heart,  in  momentary  flights  of  faith  too 
lofty  to  be  sustained,  in  a  certain  groaning  and  travailing 
under  the  sense  of  inadequate  life  and  a  cry  for  fuller 
life,  in  a  sense  of  imperfection  that  was  often  far  from 
seeing  clearly  how  it  was  to  be  satisfied,  how  the  im- 
perfection was  to  be  removed.  It  is  all  these  things  and 
many  more  put  together  now  that  form  the  argument  for 
prophecy ;  for  with  the  wddeuing  of  the  conception  of  pro- 
phecy as  not  mere  prediction,  the  argument  from  prophecy 
has  widened  in  proportion. 

And  in  this  prophet  the  reference  to  prophecy  is  more 
for  the  purpose  of  showing  that  Jehovah  is,  unlike  the 
idols,  a  living,  intelligent  Being,  who  is  working  a  work 
the  end  of  which  He  foresees  and  declares  from  the 
beginning.  Being  living  and  conscious.  He  has  before 
Him  the  whole  scope  of  His  great  operation ;  and  He 
might  carry  it  on,  leaving  men  in  darkness  as  to  what 
it  is.  But  from  the  nature  of  His  operation  men  must 
be  enabled  to  enter  into  it  also  with  intelligence.  Israel 
is  His  Servant  in  carrying  it  out,  and  it  is  Jehovah's 
relation  to  Israel  that  makes  them  prophesy.  Men  cannot 
live  unless  they  have  some  knowledge  of  what  the  end  of 
life  shall  be.  They  cannot  strive  unless  a  goal  be  set 
before  them,  nor  run  for  the  prize  unless  there  be  a  mark. 
I'ropliccy  was  an  absolute  necessity  in  a  redemptive  history; 


THE  SOLE   GODHEAD    IN    DEUTERO-ISAIAH         105 

though,  of  course,  it  niiglit  be  onougli  to  give  great  general 
conceptions  of  the  future,  and  less  necessary  to  supply 
knowledge  of  contingent  occurrences.  This  prophet  evi- 
dently refers  to  special  events  in  history,  such  as  the 
destruction  of  the  Babylonian  empire.  But  what  makes 
his  general  conception  of  interest  is  that  he  connects 
prophecy  and  history  together  as  but  the  inner  and  outer 
sides  of  one  thing.  History  is  Jehayph  i^  ^p^^'ntiifpj ; 
prophecy  is  His  mind,  conscious,  oj  its  purpose,  Incaking 
out^  m  light  around  Him,  and  enabling  men  to  .sec  Him 
operating. 

The  prophet's  references  to  prophecy  in  proof  of 
Jehovah's  sole  Godhead  are  confined  to  chaps.  xL— xlviii. 
After  these  chapters  this  argument,  being  sufficiently 
well  developed,  is  no  more  pursued.  I  need  not  do  more 
than  mention  a  few  of  the  passages  where  the  sole  Godliead 
of  Jehovah  is  explicitly  stated :  xliv.  6  ff . :  "I  am  the 
first,  and  I  am  the  last ;  and  besides  Me  there  is  no 
God " ;  "  Is  there  a  God  besides  Me  ?  yea,  there  is  no 
rock  ;  I  know  not  any."  Being  God  Himself,  He  thinks 
He  would  know  the  other  gods ;  but  He  has  no  acquaint- 
ance with  them.  Similarly  xlv.  6,  21,  xlvi.  9  ;  cf.  also 
Ixiv.  4.  In  xliii.  10  it  is  said :  "  Before  Me  there  was 
no  God  formed,  neither  shall  there  be  after  Me  .  .  . 
beside  Me  there  is  no  saviour."  Besides  prediction  and 
history,  the  Creation  in  its  unity  is  proof  of  the  sole 
Godhead  of  Him  that  formed  it :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord 
that  created  the  heavens:  He  is  God"  (xlv.   18). 

Such  passages  as  these  indicate  why  it  is  tliat  the 
prophet  so  much  insists  on  the  Godhead  of  Jehovah 
alone.  It  is  no  mere  formal  intellectual  Monotheism  that 
He  preaches.  To  Him  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God  is 
the  source  of  all  truth  and  all  life  to  men,  that  alone  which 
allows  the  nations  of  the  earth  to  have  any  destiny  before 
them.  Having  no  true  God  in  the  midst  of  them,  the 
nations  have  no  goal  l)efore  them,  no  elements  of  true  pro- 
gress ;  they  are  without  the  conditions  of  attaining  the 
destiny  set  by  God  before  men.      Yet  they  are  included 


106   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

in  His  purpose  of  grace,  and  tliey  si  mil  be  brought  into  the 
stream  of  it  by  His  servant  Israel :  "  Behold  my  Servant, 
...  he  shall  bring  forth  right  to  the  nations.  ...  He 
shall  not  faint  .  .  .  till  he  have  set  right  in  the  earth,  and 
the  countries  shall  wait  on  his  instruction  "  (xlii.  1).  It  is 
here  that  to  the  propliet  lies  the  significance  of  the  sole 
Godhead  of  Jehovah ;  the  knowledge  of  it  is  the  condition 
of  salvation  for  mankind.  Hence  Jehovah  says:  "Laok 
unto  Me,  and  be  ye  saved,  all  the  ends  of  the  earth  :  for  I 
am  God,  and  there  is  none  else"  (xlv.  22).  This  forty- 
fifth  chapter  is  one  of  the  most  important  in  the  prophecy 
in  this  point  of  view. 

5.    The  Personality  and  Spirituality  of  God. 

The  question  which  naturally  follows  that  of  the  Unity 
of  God,  is  that  of  the  Personality  and  Spirituality  of  God. 

Unquestionably  the  most  distinct  and  strongly  marked 
conception  in  regard  to  God  in  the  Old  Testament  is  that 
of  His  personality.  This  appears  on  every  page.  A  God 
identical  with  nature,  or  involved  in  nature,  and  only 
manifesting  Himself  through  the  blind  forces  of  nature, 
nowhere  appears  in  the  Old  Testament.  Hejs  always, 
distiniit._from- iiatairfi^and  personal.  In  the  first  chapter  of 
Genesis  He  stands. over  against  nature,  and  perceives  that 
it  is  good.  He  stands  also  over  against  man,  and  lays  His 
commands  upon  him :  "  Of  tlie  tree  of  the  knowledge  of 
good  and  evil  thou  shalt  not  eat."  He  puts  Himself  as  a 
moral  person  over  against  men  as  moral  persons,  and  enters 
into^covenant  of  moral  conduct  with  them.  Not  only  is 
He  conscious  of  men,  but  He  is  conscious  of  Himself :  "  By 
Myself  have  I  sworn"  (Gen.  xxii.  16;  Isa.  xlv.  23).  He 
is  not  only  conscious  of  Himself  as  existing,  but  of  what 
character  He  Himself  is.  He  resolves  with  Himself  to 
make  man,  and  to  make  him  in  His  own  image. 

In  Amos  He  swears  not  by  Himself,  but  by  His  Jioliness 
(iv.  2).  The  idea  of  some  modern  writers,  that  the  con- 
ception of  God  among  the  people  of  Israel  was  first  that  of 


PERSONALITY   01^  GOD  107 

some  power  external  to  themselves  which  they  perceived  in 
Uie  world,  a  power  making  for  a  moral  order  or  identical 
with  it,  and  whicli  they  afterwards  endowed  with  personality 
and  named  God,  inverts  the  Old  Testament  representation, 
according  to  which  the  personality  of  God  was  the  primary 
idea,  and  the  secondary  idea  tlje  moral  character  of  this 
person ;  for  this  latter  idea,  no  doubt,  became  clearer  and 
more  elevated.  This  representation  of  modern  writers  to 
which  I  liave  referred  is  not  a  historical  account  of  the 
origin  of  tlie  conception  of  God's  personality  among  the 
people  of  Israel, —  at  all  events  in  the  historical  period 
which  the  Old  Testament  embraces.  It  is  rather  a  descrip- 
tion of  movements  of  thought  in  regard  to  God,  peculiar  to 
modern  times,  when  men,  having  lost  the  idea  of  God's 
personality  which  once  prevailed,  are  making  a  new  effort 
to  regain  it. 

From  the  first  historical  reference  to  God  in  Scripture 
the  idea  of  His  being  a  person  is  firmly  reached,  and  little 
advance  takes  place  along  this  line. 

This  is  so  much  the  case  that,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  question  arises  whether  this  very  vividness  with  which 
the  personality  of  God  was  realised  in  Israel  did  not 
infringe  upon  other  conceptions  necessary  to  a  true  idea 
of  God,  such  as  His  transcendence  and  ubiquity  and 
spirituality.  Did  not  Israel  so  strongly  conceive  God  as 
a  person,  that  He  became  to  them  a  mere  magnified  human 
person,  subject  to  the  limitations  of  personality  among  men, 
so  that  true  attributes  of  Deity  were  obscured  ?  I^ow,  in 
going  to  the  Old  Testament  and  seeking  to  estimate  its 
statements  about  God,  we  have  to  remember  that  it  is  not 
a  piece  of  philosophical  writing,  that  its  statements  about 
God  are  all  given  in  the  region  of  practical  religious  Ufe, 
and  that  they  are  the  expressions  of  this  vivid  religious 
life  among  a  people  strongly  realistic  and  emotional.  A 
theology  of  the  schools,  where  the  laws  of  exact  thought 
prevail,  was  unknown  in  the  Old  Testament  period. 

We  observe,  indeed,  the  beginnings  of  such  a  theology 
in  the  Alexandrian  translation  of  the  Scriptures,  and  in  the 


108        THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

Chaldee  translation,  and  in  Jewish  writings  of  later  times. 
These  express  themselves,  in  regard  to  God,  in  a  form  that 
seeks  to  be  more  severe  and  exact,  using  circumlocutions  for 
the  anthropomorphisms  of  the  Old  Testament, — a  fact  which 
indicates  that  these  caused  some  offence  to  the  minds  of 
this  age.  Even  in  the  so-called  Priests'  Code,  while  there 
are  some  anthropomorphisms,  anthropopathisms  are  avoided. 
In  the  Old  Testament  generally,  however,  such  anthropo- 
morphisms are  freely  used,  as  we  use  them  still,  when  not 
meaning  to  be  scientific,  and  when  expressing  our  religious 
Hfe  and  feelings.  It  may  be  made  a  question,  no  doubt, 
whether,  in  the  popular  religion,  among  ourselves  they  may 
not  be  carried  to  excess,  and  whether  the  strong  realising 
of  the  personality  of  God  there  may  not  obscure  some  other 
conceptions  of  God  which  also  have  their  rights.  This 
may  well  be.  Still  the  use  of  anthropomorphisms  is  inevit- 
able if  men  will  think  of  God ;  and  it  has  usually  been 
argued  that  they  are  legitimate,  seeing  men  were  made  in 
the  image  of  God.  We  are  in  some  measure  at  least 
entitled  to  throw  back  upon  God  the  attributes  of  man 
when  speaking  of  His  action  and  thought. 

Yet  just  as  in  the  popular  religion  among  ourselves — the 
true  reHgion  of  men  animated  with  a  true  rehgious  life — it 
is  possible  that  the  powerful  feeling  of  the  personality  of  God 
may  obscure  some  of  God's  essential  attributes  and  lead  to  a 
narrow  conception  of  Him,  so  it  is  quite  possible  that  among 
the  people  of  Israel  the  same  narrowing  effect  may  have 
arisen  from  the  same  cause.  So  far,  however,  as  the  Old 
Testament  is  concerned  it  cannot  be  said  that  its  expressions 
go  this  length.  When  it  speaks  of  the  hand,  arm,  mouth, 
lips,  eyes  of  God,  of  His  speaking,  writing,  laughing,  mock- 
ing, and  the  like  ;  when,  as  in  Second  Isaiah,  He  makes  bare 
His  holy  arm  in  the  sight  of  all  the  nations  (lii.  10) ;  when 
in  His  eagerness  to  deliver  the  people  He  pants  like  a 
woman  in  travail  (xlii.  14) ;  when,  as  in  tlie  2nd  Psalm,  He 
that  sits  in  the  heavens  laughs ;  when  He  lifts  up  a  signal 
to  the  nations  (Isa.  xlix.  22) ;  when  He  is  seen  at  the  head 
of  the  Medians  mustering  His  hosts, — all  this  is  but  vivid 


ANTHROPOMORPHISMS  109 

conception  of  His  being,  llis  intelligence,  His  apprehension, 
His  activity,  and  His  universal  power  over  tlie  movements 
of  the  nations  which  He  directs.  The  human  is  transferred 
to  His  personality,  as  it  could  not  but  be ;  it  is  transferred 
graphically,  as  could  not  but  happen  when  done  by  the 
vivacious,  poetical,  powerful  phantasy  of  the  people  of 
Israel.  But  under  all  this  what  we  observe  is  the  vivid 
realisation  of  the  true,  free,  intelligent,  active  personality 
-©f— God.  Such  language  only  certifies  to  the  warmth  and 
intensity  of  the  religious  feeling  of  the  writer. 

Another  class  of  passages  may  perhaps  require  more 
consideration :  those  in  which  manifestations  of  God  are 
described  which  seem  to  imply  that  He  was  confined  within 
the  limitations  of  space,  or  that  the  human  form  really  was 
proper  to  Him.  He  is  said  to  have  walked  in  the  garden 
in  the  cool  of  the  day ;  to  have  come  down  to  see  the 
tower  which  men  did  build  ;  to  have  been  one  of  three  men 
that  appeared  to  Abraham,  and  to  have  eaten  that  which 
was  set  before  Him.  Jacob  thought  Bethel  a  house,  i.e.  a 
place  or  abode  of  God ;  and  in  Israel  His  presence  was 
inseparably  connected  with  the  Ark  of  the  Covenant. 
Under  all  these  things  there  lies  at  least  not  only  a  vivid 
conception  of  His  personality,  but  a  vivid  conception  of  a 
profound  and  more  strictly  redemptive  truth,  namely,  that 
He  reveals  Himself  and  enters  into  the  closest  iriendship 
with  'mgrJ  It  may  be  the  case  that  ideas  of  God's 
spirituality  were  less  clear  in  the  Patriarchal  age,  and  that 
some  of  these  narratives  preserve  this  fact.  It  was  but  a 
short  step  from  the  Unity  to  the  other  essential  element  in 
the  conception  of  God,  His  Spirituality.  Yet  this  step  has 
always  been  found  very  hard  to  take.  The  whole  history 
of  Israel  shows  how  hard  the  struggle  w^as  in  the  popular 
mind  between  this  idea  and  the  sensuous  conception  of  God. 

^  Of  course,  different  minds  may  estimate  these  narratives  differently. 
So  far  as  we  consider  the  experiences,  say,  of  Jacob  at  Jabbok  real,  we  may 
suppose  that  a  spiritual  impression  always  reflected  itself  in  an  accompanying 
extraordinary  physical  condition  ;  just  as  among  the  early  ])rophets  the 
ecstasy  was  usual,  while,  altliough  still  occasional  among  the  later  propheta 
(Isa   vi.  8),  it  liecame  rare. 


110   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

And  when   tlio  sense  of  God's  spirituality  was  lost,  there 
followed  s]»eedily  the  loss  of  the  sense  of  His  unity. 

Throughout  the  whole  Patriarchal  time  _ the  prevailing 
sense  of  God  was  that  of  a  lord,  an  owner,  an  almighty 
ruler  whose  commandments  must  be  obeyed,  who  tells  his 
servant  to  leave  his  country  and  he  leaves  it,  who  gives  the 
barren  children,  who  subdues  kingdoms,  and  rebukes  kings 
for  his  servant's  sake.  If  Abraham  had  a  clear  thought 
of  His  spirituality,  this  clearness  became  obscured  in  the 
minds  of  his  descendants.  Even  in  Abraham's  history  God 
is  attached  to  places.  Jacob  found  Him  at  Bethel — and 
said,  "  Surely  God  is  in  this  place — this  is  a  house  of  God 
— a  gate  of  heaven."  And  this  patriarch  reared  his  stone^ 
which,  if  it  did  not  represent  God,  was  calhd  by  him 
Bethel,  and  conceived  by  him  as  soif  thing  to  which  God 
would  attach  Himself.  These  locahsations  of  God  show  an 
imperfect  conception  of  His  spirituality.  Hence  such  high 
places  ao  rigidly  forbidden  in  the  Mosaic  constitution. 
And  it  is  certain  that  even  the  conceptions  of  the  Patri- 
archal time  became  greatly  obscured  among  the  people  in 
Egypt.  Idolatry  was  practised  largely  there.  Ezekiel  in 
several  places  chastises  the  people  for  their  idolatrous 
practices  in  this  land.  "  Then  said  I  unto  them,  Cast  away 
every  man  the  abominations  of  his  eyes,  and  defile  not 
yourselves  with  the  idols  of  Egypt"  (xx.  7). 

We  may  consider  these  two  things  ascertained  from  a 
study  of  the  history  of  Moses,  First,  that  he  gave  great 
prominence  to  the  idea  of  the  spirituality  of  God ;  and, 
second,  that  he  connected  the  idea  of  the  spiritual  God  with 
the  name  Jehovah.  The  new  elevation  given  by  Moses  to 
the  idea  of  God  cannot  be  regarded  as  anything  but  the 
result  of  a  special  revelation.  God  appeared  to  him.  He  did 
not  reach  a  purer  conception  of  God  by  study  or  thought. 
God  showed  Himself  to  him.  But  the  conceptions  of  the 
Patriarchal  time  which  were  then  loosely  held,  and  which 
had  been  almost  lost  entirely  in  Egypt,  were  brought  back 
by  him  in  full  luminousness,  and  laid  as  fundamental  con- 
ceptions at  the  basis  of  his  constitution.      One  might  raise 


SPIRITUALITY   OF   GOD  111 

doubts,  though  hardly  with  good  reason,  as  we  have 
abeady  seen,  in  regard  to  the  first  command,  as  to  whether 
it  in  so  many  words  prescribed  the  absolute  unity  of  God, 
or  only  the  relative  unity  of  God  to  Israel :  "  I  am  Jahweh 
thy  God,  which  have  brought  thee  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt  .  .  .  thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods  before  Me." 
Israel  shall  have  no  God  but  Jahweh ;  but  whether  there 
be  other  gods  is  not  certainly  declared ;  and  in  a  hymn 
contemporary  with  this  law,  the  hymn  after  the  passage 
of  the  Eed  Sea,  we  read:  "Who  is  like  unto  Thee, 
Jahweh,  among  the  gods  ? "  But  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  the  second  commandment  teaches  the  spirituality  of 
God  in  the  sharpest  manner :  "  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto 
thee  any  graven  image,  or  any  likeness  of  any  thing  that  is 
in  heaven  above,  or  hat  is  in  the  earth  beneath,  or  that 
is  in  the  waters  under  the  earth "  (Ex.  xx.  4) ;  and  in 
the  repetition  of  the  law  in  Deuteronomy  •  "  Take  ye 
therefore  good  heed  unto  yourselves;  for  ye ^' saw  no 
manner  of  similitude  on  the  day  that  the  Lord  spake 
unto  you  in  Horeb  .  .  .  Lest  ye  corrupt  yourselves  and 
make  you  a  graven  image"  (Deut.  iv.  15,  16).  And 
very  singularly  that  very  act  which  Jacob  did  is  expressly 
prohibited  in  Lev.  xxvi.  1 — "neither  shall  ye  set  up  any 
image  of  stone  in  your  land."  What  is  forbidden  in  the 
commandment  is  not  worshipping  other  gods  than  Jahweh, 
_but^ja)rshipping  Jahweh  under  any  similitude.  That  does 
not  expressly  declare  that  Jahweh  has  no  similitude,  but 
the  inference  is  immediate. 

Jehovah  is  represented  as  having  a  dwelling-place. 
But  He  is  no  local  God.  That  dwelling-place  is  usually 
conceived  to  be  heaven.  But  tliough  His  abode  is  tliere. 
He  visits  the  children  of  men,  and  appears  wherever  His 
people  are.  He  appeared  to  the  patriarchs  often  and  in 
many  places  in  Canaan.  But  though  Canaan  be  the  land 
of  Jehovah,  and  His  house.  He  is  not  confined  to  it.  He 
says  to  Jacob  :  "  Fear  not  to  go  down  into  Egypt  ;  for  I 
will  there  make  of  thee  a  great  nation :  I  will  go  down 
with  thee  into  Egypt "  (Gen.  xlvi.  3,  4).     To  Moses  in  the 


112       THE   THEOLOGY    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

wilderness  He  gave  the  promise  :  "  IMine  angel  shall  go 
before  thee"  (Ex.  xxiii.  23);  and  Moses  said:  "If  Tliy 
presence  go  not  with  me,  carry  us  not  up  hence  "  (Ex. 
xxxiii.  15).  In  one  place  He  appeared  to  Joshua  as  the 
leader  of  tlie  Lord's  host ;  in  another,  to  David. 

So  far  as  His  dwelling  among  the  people  was  concerned, 
He  abode  in  the  Ark.  The  Ark  of  the  Covenant  is  not  to 
be  conceived  as  an  idol,  or  as  an  image  of  God.  No  deity 
could  be  represented  in  the  form  of  a  small  chest.  But 
neither  is  it  enough  to  say  that  the  Ark  was  a  symbol  of 
Jehovah,  whatever  that  might  mean,  or  a  symbol  of  His 
presence.  It  was  more  than  that.  Jehovah's  presence 
was  attached  to  it.  It  was  in  some  sense  His  dwelling- 
place.  But  although  it  was  so,  and  the  people  had  thus 
an  assurance  that  He  was  present  among  them  there  in 
some  special  sense,  His  presence  was  not  confined  to  the 
Ark.  He  appeared  in  the  form  of  the  Angel  of  the  Lord 
in  many  places ;  and  when  the  Ark  was  captured  by  the 
Philistines,  the  priests  offered  sacrifices  to  Jehovah  at  Nob, 
and  set  the  shewbread  before  Him  as  had  been  done  in 
Shiloh.  Everywhere  in  the  old  histories  as  well  as  in  the 
prophetic  writings,  the  supersensuous  abode  of  Jehovah,  and 
His  condescension,  nevertheless,  and  entrance  into  the  life 
of  men,  were  both  well  understood. 

We  cannot  say  that  from  the  time  of  Israel's  becoming 
a  nation  any  belief  in  a  local  limitation  of  God  can  be 
traced.  The  sanctuaries  scattered  up  and  down  the  country 
were  hardly  places  to  which  God  was  confined ;  they  w^ere 
rather  places  where,  having  manifested  Himself,  He  was 
I  held  to  have  authorised  His  worship.  Such  facts  as  that 
men,  e.g.  Gideon,  Saul,  etc.,  reared  an  altar  anywhere,  and 
that  Absalom  when  an  exile  in  Geshur  outside  of  Palestine 
made  a  vow  to  Jehovah,  show  that  tliey  conceived  of 
Jehovah  as  without  local  limitations.  Finally,  the  multi- 
plicity and  variety  of  the  combinations  of  the  manifestation 
of  God  with  nature  show  that  the  idea  lying  at  the  root 
of  them  was  not  that  God  was  locally  confined,  but  that 
He  was  present  in  all  the  phenomena  of  the  world.     This  is 


ANTHROPOPATHIC    EXPRESSIONS  113 

the  religions  idea  lying  under  sucli  descriptions.  The  rest 
is  but  clothing  thrown  around  this  idea  by  the  religious 
phantasy.  And  when,  as  in  Ps.  xxix.,  tlie  thunderstorm  is 
specially  regarded  as  a  thcopliany,  tliis,  of  course,  arose  from 
the  fact  that  majestic  phenomena,  like  tlie  thunderstorm 
and  eartlupiake,  brought  more  impressively  before  the  mind 
the  conception  of  the  great  Person  who  was  the  cause  of 
the  phenomenon,  and  who  revealed  Himself  tluougli  it. 
But  it  does  not  need  to  be  said  again  that  the  plienomenon 
did  not  suggest  the  idea  of  God,  and  cause  the  mind  to  rise 
to  the  idea  of  a  person  ;  the  idea  of  a  person  was  tliere 
already,  and  explained  the  plienomenon.^ 

We  pass  into  another  and  somewhat  higher  region 
when  we  take  into  account  another  class  of  passages — those 
in  which  human  emotions  and  modes  of  conduct  are  thrown 
back  upon  God.  The  first  class  of  passages  referred  to 
mainly  suggested  the  personality  of  God.  The  next  class 
added  the  deep  religious  idea  of  His  manifesting  Himself 
to  men.  This  new  class  brings  in  the  idea  of  the  moral  in 
God's  personality.  Thus  He  repents  that  He  made  man, 
and  also  of  the  evil  He  intended  to  do ;  He  is  grieved ;  He 
is  angry,  jealous,  gracious  ;  He  loves,  hates,  and  much  more ; 
He  breaks  out  into  a  passion  of  anger  (Isa.  liv.  7,  8),  and 
again  He  feels  as  if  His  chastisements  had  been  excessive 
(xl.  2).  All  the  phenomena  of  the  human  soul  of  which 
as  men  we  are  conscious,  and  all  the  human  conduci;  corre- 

*  Two  beliefs  characterise  the  Hebrew  mind  from  the  beginning ;  first, 
the  strong  belief  in  causation, — every  change  on  the  face  of  nature,  or  in  the 
life  of  men  or  nations,  must  be  due  to  a  cause  ;  and,  secondly,  that  the  only 
conceivable  cause  is  a  personal  agent.  The  unseen  power  under  all  things, 
which  threw  up  all  changes  upon  the  face  of  the  world,  which  gave  anima- 
tion to  the  creature  or  withdrew  it,  which  moved  the  generations  of  men 
upon  the  earth  from  the  bogiuiiing  (Isa.  xli.  4),  bringing  Israel  out  of  Egypt, 
the  Philistines  from  Caphtor,  and  the  Syrians  from  Kir  (Amos  ix.  7),  was  tlie 
living  God.  Some  phenomena  or  events,  such  as  the  thunderstorm  or  the 
dividing  of  the  sea,  might  be  more  striking  instances  of  His  ojieration  than 
others.  They  were  miracdes,  i.e.  wonders,  but  they  did  not  differ  in  kind 
from  the  ordinary  phenomena  of  nature,  from  His  making  the  sun  to  rise, 
and  His  sealing  u})  the  stars  ;  His  clothing  the  heavens  with  blackness,  and 
making  them  bright  willi  His  lueath.  Everytliing  is  supernatural,  i.e. 
direct  Divine  operation.     There  is  no  idea  of  Law  to  lie  broken. 

8 


114       THE   THEOLOGY    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

sponcliiig  to  these  emotions,  are  thrown  back  upon  God 
It  may  be  tliat  here  there  is  a  certain  imperfection, — that 
when  we  conceive  Him  from  another  point  of  view  we 
must  hold  Him  free  of  all  passion,  and  not  subject  to  such 
changes  as  are  imphed  in  one  emotion  succeeding  another. 
This  may  be  true ;  but  it  is  equally  true  that  this  other 
mode  of  conception,  however  much  it  may  have  its  rights, 
reduces  God  to  a  Being  absolutely  unmoral,  and  even  im- 
personal, if  it  be  carried  to  its  fair  issue.  Scripture  takes 
the  other  line.  Starting  with  the  idea  of  personality,  it 
adds  that  of  moral  personality,  and  this  can  he  expressed 
in  no  other  way  than  by  attributing  to  God  such  emotions. 
Scripture  is  conscious  that  this  mode  of  conception  may  be 
abused :  "  God  is  not  a  man,  that  He  should  lie ;  nor  the 
son  of  man,  that  He  should  repent"  (Num.  xxiii.  19) — 
"  I  am  Jehovah,  I  change  not "  (Mai.  iii.  6). 

But,  again,  what  is  to  be  observed  is  that  it  is  the 
general  truth  lying  under  all  these  expressions  that  really 
makes  up  their  meaning;  that  the  real  force  of  these 
expressions  does  not  lie  in  the  form  or  in  the  detailed 
variety  of  the  emotions,  but  in  the  general  conception 
which  they  combine  to  suggest,  namely,  the  moral  Being 
of  God ;  that  men  are  in  relation  with  a  Being  between 
whom  and  them  there  is  a  moral  reciprocity, — a  Being 
to  whom  men*s  conduct  and  thought  have  a  meaning,  such 
a  meaning  that  they  seem  to  reflect  themselves  upon  His 
nature,  and  determine  it  according  to  their  quality.  In 
one  sense  such  language  used  of  God  gives  more  a  piece 
of  anthropology  than  of  theology  ;  it  testifies  to  the  meaning 
of  human  life,  to  its  moral  character,  to  the  essential 
distinction  between  one  act  of  man  and  another.  These 
distinctions  are  so  real  and  of  such  influence,  that  they 
repeat  themselves  upon  the  nature  of  God.  Man  is  not 
related  to  an  impassive  nature  force  which  his  actions  leave 
unatfected.  The  moral  voices  of  his  conduct  do  not  fall 
on  the  dead  walls  of  a  prison  in  which  he  is  immured. 
They  reverberate  in  heaven.  But  while  the  language 
elevates   the  meaning   of  man's   life  and  conduct,  it   also 


THE   SPIRIT   OF   GOD  115 

states  something  about  God.  It  describes  Him  as  the 
sensitive  moral  Spirit  in  the  universe, — sensitive  because 
He  is  perfect  moral  personality,  and  His  sensitiveness 
visible  because  He  is  the  Being  to  whom  all  stand  related. 
But  we  should  be  doing  the  same  wrong  to  the  writers  of 
Scripture  that  we  should  do  to  ourselves  or  to  another,  if 
we  charged  them,  when  expressing  the  moral  Being  of  God 
through  such  language,  with  infringing  by  it  the  passionless 
nature  of  God. 


IV.   THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD— THE  SPIRIT. 

1.   The  Spirit  of  God. 

It  is  under  tlie  aspect,  then,  of  perfect  ethical  per- 
sonality that  the  Old  Testament  conceives  of  God.  It 
has  little  to  say  of  His  essence.  He  is  a  free,  active, 
moral  person.  And  to  this  attaches  what  the  Old  Testa- 
ment says  of  the  Sjnrit  of  God.  The  question  whether 
the  Old  Testament  teaches  the  2^^'^^^onality  of  the  Spirit 
of  God  is  not  one  that  should  be  raised  apart  from  the 
other- — What  is  its  conception  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ?  We 
are  very  apt  to  raise  these  formal  questions  when  we 
ought  first  at  least  to  raise  the  material  ones.  The 
sphere  of  the  Old  Testament  is  the  practical  religious 
sphere,  out  of  which  it  never  wanders  into  the  sphere  of 
ontology.  The  whole  question  is  the  question  of  the 
relation  of  a  living,  active,  moral,  personal  God  to  the 
world  and  men.  It  asks  as  little  what  the  essence  of 
God  is  as  it  asks  what  the  essence  of  man  is. 

The  question  regarding  the  Old  Testament  idea  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  presents  itself  in  another  way.  As  we  have 
seen,  there  are  uncertainties  attacliing  to  the  terms  El, 
Elohim,  Jehovah,  wliich  prevent  us  from  getting  all  that 
we  might  expect  from  these  ancient  designations  of  God. 
More  instructive  are  the  general  statements  whicli  occur 
of    wliat    were    the    prevailing     thouglits    regarding    God 


116        THE   THEOLOGY    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

These  statements  bear  tliat  He  was  conceived  to  be  the 
source  of  all  tliin<,^s  to  Israel — of  things  spiritual  specially, 
but  also  of  other  advantages ;  and  that  He  ruled  Israel. 
He  was  King  in  Jesluirun,  and  He  was  Judge.  Men 
brought  their  causes  to  Elohim,  as  it  was  said ;  that  is,  they 
brouglit  them  to  the  priests,  to  whom  through  an  oracle 
Jeliovah  gives  a  decision.  A  later  writer  sums  up  all 
wlien  he  says :  "  The  Lord  is  our  judge,  the  Lord  is  our 
lawgiver,  the  Lord  is  our  king;  He  will  save  us"  (Isa. 
xxxiii.  22).  It  becomes,  then,  an  interesting  question  how 
Jehovah  exercises  His  rule  in  Israel,  and  His  guidance  of 
it  in  all  the  spheres  of  its  life. 

There  are  two  ways  in  which  the  Old  Testament  con- 
ceives this  to  be  done.  First,  by  external  manifestation 
of  Himself  to  men,  and  the  giving  of  commands.  This 
external  manifestation  of  Himself  is  called  the  Angel  of  the 
Lord  {^)p\  "H'^^'?).  This  Angel  is  not  a  created  angel — He 
is  Jehovah  Himself  in  the  form  of  manifestation.  Hence 
He  is  identical  with  Jehovah,  although  also  in  a  certain 
sense  different.  We  have  such  expressions  as  these  :  "  The 
angel  of  God  spake  unto  me  (Jacob)  .  .  .  and  said,  I  am 
the  God  of  Bethel"  (Gen.  xxxi.  11,  12);  "Behold,  I  send 
an  Angel  before  thee  .  .  .  My  name  is  in  Him,"  i.e.  My 
revelation  of  Myself  is  in  Him"  (Ex.  xxiii.  20,  21). 
The  "  Angel  of  the  Lord  "  redeemed  Jacob,  led  Israel  into 
Canaan,  and  directed  Israel's  armies  in  the  conflict  with 
Sisera.  Second,  by  God's  Spirit.  As  Jehovah's  operations 
in  ruling  His  people  were  chiefly  through  men,  they  are 
regarded  as  the  operations  of  His  Spirit.  The  "  Spirit  of 
Jehovah  "  is  Jehovah  Himself  within  men,  as  the  "  Angel 
of  Jehovah  "  is  Jehovah  Himself  without  men.  This  Spirit 
raised  up  judges,  ie.,  inspired  men.  He  fell  on  Saul,  and 
Saul  was  changed  into  another  man.  He  raised  up  Nazarites 
and  other  special  persons.  In  particular.  He  animated  the 
prophets.  The  whole  public  life  of  Israel  was  thus  inspired 
by  Jehovah.  Jehovah  ruled,  and  He  ruled  through  His 
Spirit. 

Further,  tlic  idea  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  like  other  ideas 


THE    SPIRIT    AS    WITHIN    GOD  117 

of  God,  is  probably  formed  upon  the  idea  of  tlie  spirit  of 
man.  The  spirit  of  man  is  not  something  distinct  from 
man,  but  is  man.  The  tl linking,  willing  life  witliin  man, 
manifestin^c  itself  in  inlluences  on  what  is  without,  is  liis 
spirit.  So  the  fulness  of  life  in  God,  active,  effectual  on 
that  which  is  without,  is  His  Spirit.  The  Spirit  of  God, 
however,  may  be  spoken  of  as  outside  His  being  or  as  within 
it.  It  is  His  nature,  not  conceived,  however,  as  substance  or 
cmise,  but  as  moral,  personal  life.  It  may  feci  within  Him, 
or  be  efficient  without  Him.  It  corresponds  to  the  spirit 
of  man.  Hence  it  may  be  physically  conceived  just  as 
man's  is.  As  man's  spirit  manifests  itself  in  his  breath,  so 
God's  Spirit  is  the  breath  of  His  nostrils,  His  fire-breath. 
Hence  it  is  represented  as  poured  out,  as  breathed,  as  coming 
from  the  four  winds,  etc. 

Now  there  are  two  questions  which  have  to  be  put  here. 
First,  What  is  said  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ?  and,  secondly.  What  is  that  Spirit  of  God  of  which 
such  things  are  said  ?  On  this  second  question  it  may  not 
be  possible  to  say  very  much.  The  answer  to  it  is  in  the 
conclusion  suggested  by  the  answer  to  the  other.  The 
first  question  itself  has  two  branches,  namely,  first.  What 
is  said  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  God,  within  God  Himself  ? 
and  secondly,  What  is  said  of  the  Spirit  of  God  not  in  God 
Himself,  but  in  connection  with  the  world  or  human  life  ? 


2.   The  Spirit  of  God  within  God  Himself 

As  what  is  said  of  God  is  for  the  most  part  of  necessity 
secondary,  that  is,  a  reflection  upon  His  being  and  application 
to  Him  of  what  is  said  and  thought  in  regard  to  men,  it  may 
be  useful  to  look  at  the  general  idea  connected  with  spirit  in 
tlie  Old  Testament,  and  at  what  is  said  of  the  spirit  of  man 
in  man.  The  passage  in  Isaiah  (xxxi.  3)  perhaps  comes 
nearer  expressing  the  idea  of  spirit  in  a  general  way  than 
any  other :  **  Now  the  Egyptians  are  men,  and  not  God,  and 
their  horses  flesh,  and  not  spirit."  The  general  scope  of  the 
passage  is  to  show  the  impotence  of  the  Egyptians:  they 


118   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

arc  men,  and  not  God  ;  tlieir  liorses  are  flesli,  and  not  spirit. 
Flesh  is  weak  and  \\Me  to  decay,  it  has  no  inherent 
power  in  it;  spirit  is  power,  or  has  power.  This  seems 
everywhere  in  the  Old  Testament  the  idea  attached  to 
spirit.  It  is  quite  probable  that  the  idea  is  not  primary, 
but  derived.  The  physical  meaning  of  spirit  (nn)  is  breath. 
Where  breath  is  present  there  is  life  and  power ;  where  it 
is  absent  there  is  only  flesh  and  weakness  and  decay.  And 
thus  the  idea  of  life  and  power  may  have  become  connected 
with  S  from  observation.  But  if  we  should  suppose  this  to 
be  the  case,  the  connection  of  the  idea  of  life  and  power 
with  spirit  is  of  such  ancient  date  that  it  precedes  that  use 
of  language  which  we  have  in  the  Old  Testament. 

Now,  in  harmony  with  this  general  idea  of  spi7Ht  is  all 
that  is  said  of  the  spirit  of  man  in  man  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. The  original  meaning  of  spirit  is  breath.  This  was 
the  sign  of  life,  or  was  the  principle  of  life.  But  by  a  step 
which  all  languages  seem  to  have  taken,  this  merely  pheno- 
menal life  or  visible  sign  or  principle  was,  so  to  speak, 
intensified  into  an  immaterial  element  in  man,  the  spirit 
of  man.  Now,  avoiding  as  far  as  possible  anthropological 
questions  which  do  not  concern  us  here,  when  the  im- 
material element  in  man  is  called  spirit  it  is  in  the  main 
either  when  it  is  put  in  opposition  to  flesh,  or  when  its 
strength  or  weakness  in  respect  of  power  and  vitality  is 
spoken  of.  Hence  we  have  such  expressions  as  these : 
"  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh  "  (Num.  xvi.  22)  ;  "  In  whose 
hand  is  the  spirit  of  all  flesh  of  man  "  (Job  xii.  10);  "  The 
spirit  of  Jacob  their  father  revived"  (Gen.  xlv.  27);  "To 
revive  the  spirit  of  the  humble"  (Isa.  Ivii.  15);  "My  spirit 
is  quenched,  my  days  are  over,  graves  are  mine"  (Job 
xviL  1).  So  it  is  said  that  there  was  "no  more  spirit" 
(1  Kings  x.  5)  in  the  Queen  of  Sheba  when  she  observed 
the  wisdom  of  Solomon ;  i.e.  she  was  overcome,  and  felt 
weak.  Hence,  too,  the  spirit  is  "overwhelmed"  and 
"  failotli "  (Ps.  cxliii.) ;  "  by  sorrow  of  heart  the  spirit 
is  broken"  (Ps.  xv.  13);  "I  will  not,  saith  the  Lord, 
contend   for   ever,   neitlicr   will    I   be  always   wroth :   for 


SPIRIT    AS    MOOD    AND    CHARACTER  119 

the   spirit  would  fail  before  Me,  and  the  brcatliH  1.1  lat   \ 
have  made"  (Isa.  Iviii.  IG). 

The  spirit,  then,  being  tliat  in  which  resides  vitality, 
power,  energy  in  general,  the  usage  became  extended  some- 
what further.  First,  any  predominating  determination  or 
prevailing  direction  of  the  mind  was  called  a  sjnrit  of  such 
and  such  a  kind ;  what  we  call  a  mood  or  temper  or  frame 
of  a  temporary  kind.  Thus  Hosea  speaks  of  "  a  spirit  of 
whoredoms"  being  in  Israel  (iv.  12);  and  Isaiah,  of  a 
"  spirit  of  deep  sleep  "  being  poured  out  on  them  (xxix.  10)  ; 
and  of  "  a  spirit  of  perverseness "  being  in  the  Egyptians 
(xix.  14) ;  and  another  prophet  speaks  of  "  a  spirit  of  grace 
and  supplications"  (Zech.  xii.  10).  So  one  is  "short  in 
spirit,"  that  is,  impatient ;  grieved  in  spirit,  hitter  in  spirit, 
and  the  like. 

TMs  powerful  determination  of  mind,  however,  might 
be  not  of  a  temporary,  but  of  a  permanent  kind.  This  is 
also  called  spirit,  and  corresponds  to  character  or  disposition, 
whether  it  be  natural  or  ethical.  Hence  one  is  of  a 
haughty  spirit,  of  a  humble  spirit,  of  a  steadfast  spirit ;  and 
the  Psalmist  prays  to  be  upheld  with  a  free  spirit  (li.  12). 
Thus  the  spirit  in  man  expresses  all  the  activities  and 
energies  of  life  and  mind :  the  strong  current  of  emotion  ; 
the  prevailing  determination  of  mind,  whetlier  temporary  or 
permanent,  and  whether  natural  or  ethical. 

And  the  usage  is  entirely  the  same  in  regard  to  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  God.  The  term  expresses  the  fulness 
of  vital  power,  and  all  the  activities  of  vital  energy, 
whether,  as  we  might  say,  emotional,  or  intellectual,  or 
moral, — whether  temporary  or  permanent.  In  regard  to 
His  emotional  nature  Micah  asks :  "  Is  the  spirit  of  the 
Lord  short,  impatient  ? "  (ii.  7).  Another  prophet  asks : 
"Who  directed  the  spirit  of  the  Lord?"  that  is.  His 
intelligence,  which  presided  over  His  power  in  giving 
weight  and  measure  to  the  infinite  masses  of  the  material 
universe.  "  Who  weighed  the  mountains  in  scales,  and  the 
hills  in  a  balance  ?  Who  directed  the  spirit  (or  mind)  of 
the  Lord  (when  He  did  so),  or  being  His  counsellor  taught 


120       THE   THEOLOGY   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

Him  ?  Who  .  .  .  instructed  Him  in  the  path  of  judgment, 
and  .  .  .  showed  to  Him  the  way  of  understanding  ?  "  (Isa. 
xl.  13,  14).  One  Psahnist  (Ps.  cxxxix.)  expresses  by  the 
term  Spirit  His  whole  omniscient  and  omnipresent  mind : 
"  Whither  from  Thy  spirit  can  I  fly  ? "  And  one  of  the 
Psahnists,  by  the  same  term,  expresses  His  unchanging 
ethical  disposition :  "  Thy  spuit  is  good,  lead  me  into  the 
land  of  uprightness"  (Ps.  cxliii.  10).  Thus  the  Old  Testa- 
ment language  as  to  the  Spirit  of  God  in  God  Himself 
corresponds  to  its  language  in  regard  to  the  spirit  of  man 
in  man. 

3.   The  Activities  of  the  Spirit 

The  other  branch  of  the  general  question  was,  What 
is  said  of  the  Spirit  of  God  not  in  God,  but  in  rela- 
tion to  the  world  and  men  ?  Now,  as  in  the  first  half 
of  the  question  it  was  of  consequence  to  ascertain  what 
general  idea  attached  to  spirit,  so  here  it  is  of  importance 
to  remember  the  general  ideas  entertained  of  God.  The 
conception  of  secondary  causes  is  almost  entirely  absent 
from  the  Old  Testament ;  what  God  does  He  does  directly 
and  fmmediately.  And  He  is  over  all  and  in  all.  All 
phenomena  are  due  to  Him,  all  changes  on  the  face  of  the 
material  world,  all  movements  in  history,  all  vicissitudes 
in  the  life  of  men.  The  Old  Testament  doctrine  of  God 
is  not  more  strongly  monotheistic  than  it  is  theistic  and 
not  deistic.  That  universal  power  within  all  things  which 
throws  up  all  configurations  on  the  face  of  the  world,  of 
history,  and  of  man's  life  is  God.  When  general  language 
is  used  these  phenomena  are  said  to  be  due  to  God  ;  when 
more  precise  language  is  used  they  are  said  to  be  due  to 
the  Spirit  of  God.  The  Spirit  of  God  ab  intra  is  God 
exerting  power,  God  efficient,  that  is,  actually  exerting 
efficiency  in  any  sphere.  And  His  efficiency  pervades  aU 
spheres,  the  physical  and  moral  alike. 

Some  instances  may  be  given  by  way  of  illustration. 
First,  in  the  cosmical  sphere.     The  Spirit  of  God  moved 


THE   SPIRIT   IN   NATURE    AND   LIFE  121 

upon  the  face  of  the  waters — the  watery  cliaos  (Gen.  i.  2). 
Tliis  is  a  ixNihstic  image  which  expresses  tlie  idea  that  God's 
creative  power  was  engaged  in  educing  hfe  and  order  out  of 
the  primal  chaos.  It  is  of  some  consequence  to  distinguish 
hetween  this  Spirit  of  God  and  the  successive  creative 
feats — "  let  there  be  light,"  etc.  These  latter  express 
God's  conscious  will  and  determination.  These  are  move- 
ments of  the  Spirit  of  God  according  to  the  passage  in 
Isa.  xl.  13,  already  referred  to,  ah  intra.  The  pervading 
Spirit  expresses  God's  efficient  presence  and  operation  ah 
intra,  carrying  out  His  voluntary  determinations. 

In  Job  (xxvi.  13)  it  is  said  that  "by  the  Spirit  of  God  the 
heavens  are  made  bright," — a  bold,  though  not  unnatural 
figure  identifying  the  wind  that  carries  off  the  clouds 
through  God's  efficiency  with  the  Spirit  of  God.  In  like 
manner  Isaiah  (xl.  7)  says  "  the  grass  withereth  when  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  breatheth  or  bloweth  u])on  it,"  identifiying 
the  hot  withering  wind  of  the  desert  with  the  Spirit  of  God  ; 
and  Ezekiel  (xxxvii.  9)  uses  the  figure  of  breath  or  wind 
from  the  four  quarters  of  the  heaven  for  the  vitalising  Spirit 
of  God,  in  animating  the  dead.  This  operation  of  the  Spirit 
of  God  upon  the  material  world,  however,  is  rarely  spoken 
of,  and  it  appears  to  be  but  an  extension  of  the  idea  which 
is  referred  to  next. 

Second,  there  is  the  Divine  operation  in  the  sphere  of  life 
or  vitality.  God  in  His  power  and  efficiency,  or  the  Spirit 
of  God,  is  much  dwelt  on  in  the  sphere  of  life,  whether  in 
giving  vitaHty  or  in  reinforcing  it.  In  the  Creation  narrat- 
ive it  is  said  of  man  that  he  was  formed  "  of  the  dust 
of  the  ground,"  and  that  man  being  thus  formed,  God 
breathed  into  his  nostrils  "  the  breath  of  life,  and  he  became 
a  living  being "  (Gen.  ii.  7).  This  again  appears  to  be 
exceedingly  reahstic  imagery.  Breath  in  man's  nostrils  is 
the  sign  of  Hfe ;  it  may  be  said  to  be  life  in  man.  Hence 
also  God  has  a  breath  of  life  in  Him  like  man — as  indeed 
the  breath  of  His  nostrils  in  anger  is  frequently  spoken  of. 
When  this  breath  or  spirit  of  life  was  breathed  into  man, 
man  also  lived.     Obviously  we  must  throw  away  the  imagery 


122   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

and  seek  the  idea — which  is,  that  God  is  the  source  0/  life ; 
and  in  any  particular  case  of  ])roducing  life,  it  is  God's  Spirit 
that  produces  it.  Man's  life  is  the  presence  in  man  of 
God's  Spirit.  Hence  Job  says  :  "  The  spirit  of  Grod  is  in  my 
nostrils  "  (xxvii.  3) ;  and  Elihu  says,  "  The  spirit  of  God 
made  nie,  and  the  breath  of  the  Almighty  giveth  me  life  " 
(xxxiii.  4).  Hence  as  the  source  from  whence  life  comes, 
tliis  Spirit  is  called  the  Spirit  of  God ;  but,  as  it  is  in  man, 
it  is  also  said  to  be  mans  spirit :  "  Thou  hidest  Thy  face,  they 
are  troubled ;  Thou  takest  away  their  spirit,  they  die,  and 
return  to  their  dust ;  Thou  sendest  forth  Thy  spirit,  they 
are  created"  (Ps.  civ.  29,  30).  And  Elihu  says  in  another 
passage  :  "  If  God  should  set  His  mind  on  Himself  {i.e. 
cease  to  think  of  the  creature)  and  withdraw  His  spirit, 
all  flesh  would  perish"  (Job  xxxiv.  15). 

Of  course,  we  must  beware  of  imagining  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  is  divided  or  divisible.  The  spirit  of  life  in  man  is 
not  a  particle  of  God's  Spirit  enclosed  in  man,  which,  when 
released,  returns  to  the  great  original  source  ;  it  is  not  a 
spark  separated  from  the  primary  fire.  And  it  is  equally 
inept  to  ask  where  this  spirit  of  life  goes  when  withdrawn. 
It  goes  nowhere.  As  the  ocean  fills  the  caves  on  the 
shore,  and  again  when  it  recedes  leaves  them  empty,  so  the 
indivisible  Spirit  of  God  gives  creatures  life,  and  when 
withdrawn  leaves  them  dead.  Stripped  of  all  these  scarcely 
to  be  avoided  figures,  and  of  that  tendency  so  ineradicable 
in  the  Eastern  mind  to  turn  general  conceptions  into  things, 
all  this  seenis  to  mean  that  vitality  in  aU  creatnres  is  due 
to~G^od,  to  God's  operation.  God  is  the  source  of  life,  and 
as  God  He  is  continually  communicating  His  life."  But  God 
in  operation  or  efficiency  is  the"  Spirit"  of  God,  and  God's 
operation  in  giving  the  creature  life  is  the  eiit rail ce  of  His 
Spirit  into  the  creature.  His  continuous  efficiency  in 
upholding  life  is  the  continuous  presence  of  His  Spirit ; 
His  cessation  to  uphold  life  is  the  withdrawal  of  His 
Spirit.1 

1  The  above  exegesis  of  the  passage  in  Gen.  ii.  may  seem  doubtful.    There 
is  room  for  dissent ;  for  the  word  nn  means  both  the  life  breath,  mere  vitality, 


THE    SPIRIT    IN    THE    PROPHETS  123 

Tliird,  tliere  is  also  tlie  Div^ine  operation  in  a  region  f 
perhaps  soiuewliat  lii^lier,  l»eing  one  in  luinian  experience)( 
and  history.  This  embraces  tliose  cases  in  which  extra- 
ordinary feats  of  strength  and  daring  are  referred  to 
the  Spirit  of  God.  Thus  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  came 
upon  Othniel,  and  he  judged  Israel  and  went  out  to  war 
(Judg.  iii.  10);  upon  Gideon,  and  he  blew  a  trumpet,  and 
Abiezer  was  gathered  unto  him  (vi.  34) ;  upon  Jephthah, 
and  he  passed  over  Gilead  against  the  children  of  Ammon 
(xi.  29)  ;  on  Samson,  and  he  rent  the  lion  in  pieces  as 
one  rends  a  kid  (xiv.  6) ;  on  Saul,  when  the  Ammonites 
besieged  Jabesh-Gilead,  and  his  anger  was  kindled  exceed- 
ingly (1  Sam.  ii.  6).  Some  of  these  cases  may  be  referred 
to  again.  What  struck  the  beholder  in  these  cases  was 
the  presence  of  a  power  and  efficiency  superhuman.  These 
heroes  were  acted  upon,  and  showed  a  power  not  their 
own.  The  power  of  acting  on  them  was  God — the  Spirit 
of  God. 

And  perhaps  to  this  division  belongs  the  ascription  of 
prophecy  at  first  to  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  early  prophets, 
as  we  see  from  what  is  related  in  connection  with  Saul, 
were  the  subjects  of  a  lofty  enthusiasm,  which  sometimes 
became  an  uncontrollable  excitation  or  ecstasy.  This 
visible  external  affection  of  the  prophet  was  probably  what 
attracted  attention  and  was  ascribed  to  the  Spirit  of  God, 
i.e.  the  inspiration  of  which  the  excitation  was  the  symptom 
was  due  to  the  Spirit  of  God.  I  do  not  allude  here  to  any 
question  whether  or  how  God  was  present  with  these  pro- 
phets. I  merely  say  that  it  was  probably  the  phenomenon 
of  excitation    which   was   observed,  and   which   su^crested 

and  the  immaterial  element  in  man.  And  it  may  seem  that  it  was  tliis  latter 
that  God  breathed.  I  have  never  been  able  to  see  my  way  through  these 
two  uses  of  'n  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  point  of  union  between  them  is, 
I  think,  here,  that  nn  is  spoken  of  the  immaterial  part  when  special  reference 
is  made  to  vitality.  I  think  when  the  phraseology  I  have  referred  to — that  of 
the  spirit  being  taken,  was  used  the  question  was  not  pursued  where  it  went. 
Later  the  question  was  asked,  as  in  Ecclesiastes  :  "Who  knows  whether  the 
spirit  of  man  goeth  up,  and  the  spirit  of  beast  goeth  down?"  (iii.  21).  On 
the  exegesis  adopted  above  the  connection  between  the  Sj)irit  of  God  and  life 
or  vitality  in  the  creature  is  evident. 


124   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

k>  the  observer  tlie  presence  of  God — tlie  Spirit  of  God. 
It  is  prol);il)le  that  it  was  tlie  external  excitation  and 
elevation  of  the  prophet  that  was  described  as  the  effect 
of  the  Spirit  of  God,  and  not  as  yet  anything  ethical 
or  spiritual  in  the  contents  of  what  the  prophets  uttered. 
We  may  infer  this  from  the  remarkable  passage  in  1  Sam. 
xviii.  10,  where  it  is  said  that  an  "evil  spirit  of  God  fell 
upon  Saul,  and  he  prophesied  in  the  midst  of  the  house." 

In  later  times,  when  prophecy  threw  off  this  excita- 
tion and  became  an  ethical  intercourse  of  the  mind  of 
man  with  God,  a  thing  almost  normal, — as  in  the  case 
of  Jeremiah,  who  repudiates  all  such  things  as  prophetic 
dreams,  and  claims  for  the  prophet  simple  entrance  into 
the  counsel  of  God, — the  phraseology  formed  in  earlier 
days  still  remained,  but  with  another  sense.  The  prophet 
is  still  called  in  Hosea  the  man '  of  the  Spirit ' ;  and  Micah 
says  in  significant  language :  "  Truly  I  am  full  of  power 
by  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  ...  to  declare  to  Jacob  his 
transgressions,  and  to  Israel  his  sin  (iii.  8).  The  power 
which  seemed  formerly  physical  had  now  become  moral. 

Fourth,  there  is  the  same  in  the  sphere  of  intellectual 
gifts.  "  There  is  a  spirit  in  man,"  says  Elihu,  and  "the  breath 
of  the  Almighty  giveth  him  understanding."  Intellectual 
powders  are  regarded  as  the  product  of  God's  Spirit,  i.e.  of 
God.  Artistic  skill,  as  in  the  case  of  Bezaleel,  is  ascribed 
to  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord. 

Fifth,  so,  too,  in  the  sphere  particularly  of  moral  life. 
All  the  religious  emotions  and  vitality  of  man,  the  endow- 
ments which  we  call  sjnritual,  are  said  to  be  due  to  the 
Spirit  of  God.  Hence  the  Psalmist  prays :  "  Take  not  Thy 
holy  Spirit  from  me"  (li.  11),  which  is  almost  equal  to 
a  prayer  that  his  mind  may  not  cease  to  be  religious,  to 
have  thoughts  of  God,  and  aspirations  towards  God.  Of 
course,  connected  with  this,  the  Spirit  of  God  is  the  source 
of  all  theocratic  forces  or  capacities  in  the  mind  of  man. 
Here  God  is  personally  most  active ;  here  He  communi- 
cates Himself  in  most  fulness.  Hence  the  prophet  is  full 
of  might  by  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  to  declare  to  Israel  his 


THE   SPIRIT   OF   JEHOVAH  125 

sins  (Mic.  iii.  8).  And  Uic  Messiah  has  poured  out  on 
him  the  Spirit  of  Jehovali,  not  only  as  a  spirit  of  tlie  fear 
of  the  Lord,  but  as  a  spirit  of  wisdom  and  government 
(Isa.  xi.   2). 

This  is  by  far  the  largest  of  the  various  spheres.  But 
it  is  familiar,  and  it  is  not  necessary  to  enlarge  upon  it. 

Now,  perhaps  this  slight  induction  might  justify  the 
general  remark  that  the  Spirit  of  God  is,  so  to  speak,  the 
constantaccompaninient  of  God,  the  reflection  of  God. 
The_SpiriF~of~J"e]i()v;ih  is  Jcliovah  Himself — the  source  of 
life  of  all  kinds,  of  the  quickening  of  the  mind  in  thought, 
in  morals,  in  religion,  particularly  the  last.  God  is  all, 
and  all  comes  from  Him.  The  ideas,  God  and  Spirit  of 
God,^  are  parallel,  and  cover  one  "another.  This  calling 
what  is  really  God  by  the  term  i\\Q  Spirit  of  God,  is  the 
strongest  proof  that  the  idea  of  the  spirituaHtij  of  God 
underlay  the  idea  of  God  ;  just  as  '  the  spirit  of  man ' 
in^cated  That  in  Irian  spirit  is  the  main  element.  Hence, 
whatever  development  we  may  trace  in  the  Old  Testament 
in  the  doctrine  of  God,  there  will  be  a  corresponding- 
development  in  that  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  Spirit  of 
God  being  God  in  operation,  an  advance  on  the  conception 
of  God,  a  tendency  to  give  the  thought  of  God  a  prevailing 
direction,^as,  "e.^. ,  the  ethical  or  redemptive,  will  be  followed, 
or  rather  accompanied,  by  the  same  advance  and  tendency 
in  regard  to  the  Spirit  of  God. 

And  here  perhaps  a  distinction  should  be  alluded  to 
which  no  doubt  is  connected  with  such  a  tendency — the 
distinction  between  the  Spirit  of  God  and  the  Spirit  of  the 
Lord,  or  Jehovah.  The  distinction  has  no  bearing  on 
general  principles,  inasmuch  as  Jehovah  is  God  under  a 
certain  aspect.  But  the  aspect  is  important.  Jelioyah  is 
God  as  .God  of  Israel,  God  as  King  of  the  redemptive 
kingdom  of  God  in  Israel.  And  the  Spirit  of_Jhe.Lord  is 
theXord' operating  as  redemptive  God  in  Israel._  This  very 
ideaTln  itself  gave  a  pai'ticuIaFTTirection  to  the  thought  of 
God,  and  therefore  to  that  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  The 
ethical  and  spiritual   naturally  came    to   the   front.      The 


126       THE   THEOLOGY    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

Spirit  given  to  men  siicli  as  Gideon,  Je})]illiali,  and  others 
was  this  tbeoeratic  ledeniptive  Spirit;  it  was  Jeliovali 
operating  in  men  for  redemptive  purposes — saving  and 
ruling  His  people.  And  the  Spirit  of  prophecy  became 
almost  exclusively  ethical.  And,  of  course,  the  further 
down  we  come  the  more  this  conception  of  God,  and 
consequently  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  became  the  prevailing 
one,  until  it  became  almost  the  exclusive  one.  The  Spirit 
of  God  under  the  name  of  the  '  Holy  Spirit '  occurs  very 
rarely,  only  three  times  in  the  Old  Testament,  in  Ps.  li. 
and  twice  in  Isa.  Ixiii.  Both  these  compositions  may 
be  late.  Judging  from  usage,  e.g.  holy  hill,  holy  city, 
holy  place,  holy  arm,  etc.,  which  mean  hill  of  God,  city 
of  God,  etc.,  the  phrase  '  Holy  Spirit '  probably  at  first 
merely  meant  Divine  Spirit,  Spirit  of  God,  emphasising 
the  fact  that  He  was  the  Spirit  of  God.  But,  of  course, 
as  the  ethical  being  of  God  more  and  more  became  pro- 
minent, the  same  advance  in  the  ethical  quality  of  the 
Spirit  also  took  place,  and  the  expression  Holy  Spirit  was 
specially  employed  to  express  this  idea. 

The  general  conclusion  which  seems  to  follow  from 
these  things  is:  that  the  Spirit  of  God  ah  intra  is  God 
active,  showing  life  and  power,  of  the  kinds  similar  to  those 
exhibited  by  the  spirit  of  man  in  man ;  that  the  Spirit 
of  God  ah  extra  is  God  in  efficient  operation,  whether  in 
the  cosmos  or  as  giving  life,  reinforcing  life,  exerting 
efficiency  in  any  sphere, — according  to  the  nature  of  the 
sphere,  whether  physical,  intellectual,  or  spiritual ;  and 
that  tlie  tendency  towards  limiting  the  Spirit  of  God  to 
the  ethical  and  spiritual  spheres  is  due  to  the  tendency  to 
regard  God  mainly  on  those  sides  of  His  being. 

4.    What  the  Spirit  is. 

But  now,  on  the  second  question.  What  is  the  Spirit  of 
God  of  which  the  above  things  are  said  ?  If  the  Spirit  of 
God  be  God  exercising  power  or  efficiency,  does  He  work  it 
per  se  or  per  alium'i.      Is  the  Spirit  of  God  numerically 


QUESTION   OF   THE   PERSONALITY   OF   THE   SPIRIT     127 

another,  distinct  from  God  in  the  Old  Testament  ?  This 
question  is  exceedingly  difficult  to  answer.  Of  course,  the 
language  used,  whether  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ah  intra  or  ah 
extra,  might  be  used,  and  no  doubt  is  used  now,  to  express 
the  conception  of  the  Spirit  as  a  distinct  person.  But  it  is 
doubtful  if  any  Old  Testament  passage  can  be  found  which 
requires  this  sense ;  and  it  is  doubtful  if  any  passage  of 
the  Old  Testament  has  this  sense,  if  by  the  sense  of  the 
Old  Testament  we  mean  the  sense  intended  by  the  writers 
of  the  Old  Testament. 

It  should  be  said  further,  that  the  idea  of  the  personality 
of  the  Spirit  is  not  one  that  we  should  expect  to  be  pro- 
minent in  the  Old  Testament.  For  we  have  to  start  from 
the  idea  that  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  the  Lord — not  an 
influence  from  Him,  but  the  Lord  Himself.  This  is  the 
first  step  to  any  just  doctrine  of  the  personality  of  the 
Spirit. 

The  Old  Testament,  however,  seems  to  teach  these 
things :  {a)  The  Spirit  of  God  is  always  something,  as  we 
say,  supernatural,  and  it  is  always  God.  The  Spirit  of  God 
is  not  an  influence  exerted  by  God  at  a  point  from  which 
He  is  Himself  distant.  God  is  always  present  in  the 
Spirit  of  God.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  God  actually  present 
and  in  operation.  And  this  lays  the  foundation  for  the 
New  Testament  doctrine,  (h)  The  Spirit  of  God  is  not  a 
substance  communicated  to  man.  The  Old  Testament 
knows  nothing  of  a  spiritual  substance.  God  is  not  any- 
where called  a  Spirit  in  the  Old  Testament :  He  has  a 
Spirit ;  but  Spirit  is  not  a  substance.  It  is  an  energy. 
The  various  figures  used  of  the  communication  of  the  Spirit, 
as  to  fall  on,  to  pass  on,  to  rest  on,  and  the  like,  express 
either  the  super  naturalness  of  the  gift,  or  its  suddenness 
and  power,  or  its  abiding  influence.  One  peculiar  expres- 
sion is  used,  the  Spirit  of  God  clothed  him,  implying  the 
complete  enveloping  of  all  the  human  faculties  in  the 
Divine.  This  phrase  is  still  used  by  the  Moliammedans. 
When  they  whirl  or  jerk  their  heads  back  and  forward  till 
they  fall  down   in  a  faint,  then  they  are  *  clothed.'     The 


128       THE   THEOLOGY    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

figure  is  quite  intelligible.     Job  says :  "  I  put  on  justice, 
and   it  clothed    nie"    (xlix.    14) — he  was  himself  hidden 
and  lost  behind  justice,      (c)  And  with  this  second  point, 
that  the  Si^irit  of   God  is  not  a  substance,  is  connected 
the  other  conclusion,  that,  as  all  the  passages  and  examples 
show,  the  influence  exerted  on  man  in  His  communication 
is,  as  we  say,  dynamical.      It  does  not  give  thoughts,  e.g., 
but  it  invigorates  and  elevates  the  faculty  of  thought.     It  is 
not  a  material,  but  a  formal  gift,  sending  power  into  all  the 
capacities  of  the  mind,  and  thus  it  is  in  a  sense  re-creative. 
There    are,  indeed,  a    very    considerable    number    of 
passages   in   the   Old   Testament   which   might  very  well 
express  the  idea  that  the  Spirit  is  a  distinct  hypostasis  or 
person.       We   might   refer   specially  to  such  passages  as 
Hag.  ii.  5  :  "  My  Spirit  is  in  the  midst  of  you  "  ;  Zech.  iv.  6  : 
"Not  by  might  ...  but  by  My  Spirit";  Isa.  Lxiii.  10: 
"  They  rebelled,  and  vexed  His  holy  Spirit  "  ;  Isa.  Lxiii.  1 1 : 
"  Where  is  He  who  put  His  holy  Spirit  within  it  (Israel)  ? ," 
etc.     But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  said  that  little 
can  be  made  of  most  of  those  passages  in  which  a  dis- 
tinction appears  to  be  made  between  God  and  His  Spirit. 
For  men   also  distinguish   between    themselves  and  their 
spirit,  and  speak  of  their  souls,  their  spirits,  etc.     This  way 
of  speaking,  it  must,  however,  be  added,  is  much  developed 
in  the  Old  Testament,  so  that  we  may  say  the  beginnings 
at  least  of  the  distinction  between  the  Lord  and  His  Spirit, 
are   to   be   seen.     But,  at   the   same   time,  it  is   doubtful 
whether  there  are  any  passages  which  must  be  so  inter- 
preted.    That  moral  attributes,  such  as  goodness  and  holi- 
ness, are  ascribed  to  the  Spirit,  hardly  goes  any  way  to 
prove  distinction.     Of  more  force,  perhaps,  is  such  a  passage 
as  the  one  in  Isa.  lxiii.    10.     But  then  another  passage 
(Isa.  liv.  6)  speaks   of   a  woman   forsaken  and  grieved  in 
spirit.      Of  some  significance,  however,  is  Isa.  xlviii.  16; 
"  Jehovah   hath   sent   me  and  His  Spirit " — He  and  His 
Spirit  have  sent  me,  or  perhaps,  He  hath  sent  me  ^vith 
His   Spirit.      The  question    here  is  whetlier  the  Spirit  is 
suhjcct  or  object.     But  even  if  tlic  latter  is  the  case,  it  may 


THE    RKJHTEOUSNESS    OF    COD  129 

still  bo  said  that  tlic  Spirit  becoiiics  an  agent  parallel  to 
man  —  whuever  the  speaker  be,  whether  prophet  or 
Servant. 

Tiiere  is  one  more  point  on  wln'ch  a  word  will  suffice. 
We  hear  it  said  sometimes  in  regard  to  such  passages  as 
that  in  Gen.  i.  26  :  "Let  us  make  man";  or  Isa.  vi.  8: 
"  Who  will  go  for  us  ? " — that  there  is  there  a  vague  or 
obscure  intimation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  Now 
this  is  unfortunate  language.  It  is  unhappily  the  case 
that  there  are  many  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  which 
we  must  call  obscure ;  that  is,  w^e  are  unable  to  say  wliether 
this,  or  that,  or  some  other  thing  be  the  meaning.  But  we 
never  have  any  doubt  that  tliey  have  some  one  perfectly 
clear  sense,  if  we  had  the  means  of  reaching  it.  They  are 
not  vague  in  themselves.  There  is  no  vagueness  or 
obscurity  in  either  of  the  passages  referred  to.  If  God, 
who  speaks  in  these  passages,  uses  the  word  us  of  Himself, 
there  is  a  perfectly  clear  statement  to  the  effect  that  the 
Godhead  is  a  plurality — whether  that  plurality  be  a 
duality,  or  a  trinity,  or  some  other  number  is  spoken  of. 
But  so  far  the  sense  has  no  vagueness  or  obscurity.  The 
point,  however,  is  whether  the  Divine  speaker  uses  the 
word  us  of  Himself,  i.e.  of  the  Godhead  alone,  or  whether 
He  does  not  rather  include  others,  e.g.  His  heavenly  council 
along  with  Him.  The  opinion  of  most  expositors  is  to  the 
latter  effect. 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  GOD— THE  DIVINE 
ATTRIBUTES. 


1.   The  Righteousness  of  God. 

The  etymological  meaning  of  the  root  piv  may  not  be 
now  ascertainable.  Like  dp,  holy,  tlie  word,  no  doul)t, 
once  expressed  a  physical  action  ;  Ijut  in  usage  it  seems 
now  to  occur  only  in  a  moral  sense,  or  when  used  of 
things  in  the  sense  of  our  word  'right.'  It  has  Ik-cii 
9 


130   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

suggested  that  the  Hebrew  idea  of  '  right '  was  what  was 
conformable  to  a  standard ;  but  there  seems  to  be  Httle 
in  this.  It  was  not  conformity  to  a  standard  that  made 
things  right,  but  conformity  to  a  right  standard.  The  idea 
of  a  standard  is  secondary — the  idea  of  right  precedes  it. 
A  standard  is  only  a  concrete  embodiment  or  expression 
of  right  in  a  particular  sphere.  An  ephah  is  a  standard  in 
measurement,  but  only  a  right  ephah.  The  prophet  Micah 
speaks  of  the  cursed  scanty  ephah,  to  measure  according  to 
which  was  not  right  (vi.  10). 

All  that  it  is  of  consequence  to  keep  in  mind  is  that 
long  before  we  find  judgments  on  conduct  passed,  the  per- 
son or  mind  passing  them  had  already  the  ideas  of  right 
and  wrong,  and  the  further  ideas  what  things  were  right  and 
what  things  were  wrong  in  the  particular  spheres  to  which 
his  judgment  applied.  And  long  before  judgments  are 
passed  and  predications  of  righteousness  or  unrighteousness 
made,  whether  in  regard  to  God  or  to  man,  the  persons 
making  them  were  already  so  far  morally  educated.  The 
question  how  persons  found  passing  judgment  became 
morally  educated  is  not  of  much  consequence,  because  it 
refers  to  something  anterior  to  the  point  at  which  we  must 
begin.  The  judgments  which  we  find  passed  in  regard  to 
righteousness  or  unrighteousness  are  made  from  the  mind 
of  the  person  judging,  and  as  a  rule  bear  no  reference  to 
any  source  from  which  he  may  have  learned  to  judge  as  he 
does. 

That  is  *  righteous,'  whether  in  God  or  in  man,  which  is 
right  in  the  circumstances,  i.e.,  judged  by  the  person  who 
pronounced  the  judgment  to  be  right.  Eighteousness  is 
one,  whether  in  God  or  in  man.  It  would  be  wrong  in  a 
human  judge  or  ruler  to  condemn  the  righteous  with  the 
wicked,  or  destroy  them  indiscriminately ;  and  Abraham 
asks  in  reference  to  such  a  thing :  "  Shall  not  the  judge  of 
all  the  earth  do  right?"  (Gen.  xviii.  25).  Of  course, 
there  is  great  difference  between  God  and  man,  seeing 
man's  righteousness  may  largely  consist  in  a  right  relation 
to  God,  while  God  may  not  be  conditioned  in   tliis  way. 


SOVEREIGNTY    AND    RIGHTEOUSNESS  131 

lUit  the  fact  that  God  is  God  does  not  withdiaw  Him  and 
His  actions  from  the  splicre  of  moral  judgment.  Notliing 
would  be  riglit  in  God  because  He  is  God,  wliich  would 
not  be  right  in  Him  were  He  man.  Again,  naturally  this 
statement  is  general,  and  has  to  be  limited  in  many  ways. 
He  is  right,  for  instance,  in  demanding  obedience  from 
man,  and  man  is  right  in  obeying  Him ;  still  it  is  always 
understood  in  the  particular  instances  that  the  act  re- 
quired and  rendered  is  an  act  right  in  itself,  tliough  it 
may  be  that  in  details  some  actions  might  at  an  early 
time  be  considered  right,  or  not  wrong,  which  would  not 
be  considered  right  now.  But  while  men  may  be  found 
in  plenty  who  are  described  as  doing  those  things  not  now 
considered  right,  it  may  be  doubtful  if  there  are  cases 
where  they  are  commanded  by  God  to  do  them. 

It  is  sometimes  argued  that  because  God  is  sovereign 
He  has  a  right  to  do  with  His  creatures  as  He  pleases,  and 
He  is  right  or  righteous  in  so  doing.  The  abstract  question 
does  not  concern  us  here ;  I  do  not  think  it  is  touched 
upon  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  Old  Testament  certainly 
teaches  that  God  does  "  according  to  His  pleasure  in  the 
armies  of  heaven  and  among  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth" 
(Dan.  xi.  16);  but  I  think  it  is  always  assumed  that  His 
pleasure  is  a  benevolent  and  moral  one,  at  least  in  the  first 
instance,  and  that  when  it  is  otherwise  this  is  due  to  the 
evil  of  men.  The  figure  of  the  clay  and  the  potter  is  fre- 
quently used.  Now  this  figure  means  that  it  is  God  that 
does  shape  the  history  and  destinies  of  mankind,  par- 
ticularly of  His  people ;  but  it  says  nothing  of  the 
principles  according  to  which  He  shapes  them.  In  Isa. 
xlv.  9—12  the  people  of  Israel  are  represented  as  criticising 
the  methods  of  God's  dealing  with  them,  the  instruments 
He  is  using  for  their  deliverance.  They  disliked  the  idea 
that  a  heathen  conqueror  like  Cyrus  should  be  God's  agent 
in  giving  them  freedom,  or  they  were  incredulous  as  to  the 
results.  And  God  replies  to  them :  "  Woe  to  tliat  which 
strives  with  Him  who  makes  it !  .  .  .  Shall  the  clay  say 
to  the  potter,  What  makest  thou  ?  or  shall  thy  work  say 


132       THE   THEOLOGY   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

in  regard  to  thee,  He  has  no  hands  ?  .  .  .  Thus  saith 
Jehovah,  the  Holy  One  of  Israel,  Ask  Me  concerning  My 
children,  and  commit  to  Me  the  work  of  My  hands.  I 
have  made  earth,  and  man  upon  it :  My  hands  stretched 
out  the  heavens."  What  God  claims  here  is  not  the  right 
to  do  as  He  pleases ;  what  He  claims  is  superior  power 
and  understanding,  and  as  having  this  He  claims  that  He, 
the  Creator  of  earth  and  man  upon  it,  and  of  the  host  of 
heaven,  may  be  trusted  to  deal  with  the  people's  destinies 
in  wisdom  and  with  success.  It  is  the  same  idea  as 
is  expressed  in  another  place :  "  Your  ways  are  not  My 
ways,  nor  My  thoughts  your  thoughts.  As  the  heavens 
are  higher  than  the  earth,  so  are  Mj  thoughts  (or  plans) 
higher  than  your  thoughts  "  (lya.  Iv.  8,  9). 

The  paragraph  in  Jcr.  xviii.  about  the  potter  supplies 
a  further  element.  The  prophet  went  down  to  the  potter's 
house,  and  behold  he  wrought  his  work  on  the  wheels. 
And  when  the  vessel  that  he  was  making  of  the  clay  was 
marred  in  the  hands  of  the  potter,  he  made  it  again  another 
vessel,  as  seemed  good  to  the  potter  to  make  it.  Then  the 
word  of  the  Lord  came  to  the  prophet :  "  Behold,  as  the 
clay  in  the  potter's  hand,  so  are  ye  in  Mine  hand,  0  house 
of  Israel"  The  potter's  design  was  to  make  a  vessel,  but 
the  clay  was  marred  in  his  hand.  The  cause,  no  doubt,  lay 
in  the  clay ;  it  was  due  to  some  Haw  or  intractability  in  it. 
It  was  not  suitable  for  the  potter's  first  intention,  and  he 
made  of  it  that  which  could  be  made  of  it.  This  is  the 
whole  scope  of  the  chapter.  It  is  meant  to  show  that  God 
deals  with  men  and  nations  on  moral  principles,  one  way 
or  another,  according  to  their  character ;  that,  if  His  first 
intention  fails  with  them,  He  has  recourse  to  another : 
"  At  what  time  I  speak  concerning  a  nation  to  build  and  to 
plant  it,  if  it  do  evil  in  My  sight,  then  I  will  repent  of  the 
good,  wherewith  I  said  I  would  benefit  them."  But  the 
opposite  is  equally  true  :  "  At  what  time  I  speak  concerning 
a  nation,  to  x>hick  u]),  and  to  destroy  it ;  if  that  nation  turn 
from  their  evil,  I  will  repent  of  the  evil  that  I  thought  to 
do  unto  them."     Jeremiah's  figure  teaches  these  two  things  : 


RIGHTEOUSNESS    NOT    ABSTRACT  133 

firwt,  tliat  Ho  can  deal  with  nations  as  the  ])ottcr  dcak 
witli  the  clay  ;  but,  second,  also  the  principles  on  which  He 
deals  with  theni.^ 

God  is  righteous^jwhcn  He_  does  what  is  right  in  any 
particular  case,  or  in  any  of  tlie  cluiracters  in  which  He 
acts  as  Judge,  Euler,  God  of  His  people.  Eighteousness  is 
not  an  abstract  thing;  it  is  right  conduct  in  particular 
relations.  God  is  not  very  often  said  to  be  righteous  in 
regard  to  His  whole  character,  so  to  speak,  though  there 
are  examples.  The  term  is  more  often  said  of  men.  But 
a  righteous  man  is  one  who  has  done  or  always  does  right 
actions.  And  God's  righteousness  is  judged  in  the  same 
way.  Now  it  is  evident  what  is  right  in  a  judge  or  ruler ; 
it  is  to  clear  the  innocent  and  condemn  the  guilty,  to  find 
out  and  give  effect  to  the  truth  in  any  particular  cause. 
It  is  particularly  right  in  the  judge  or  ruler  to  see  that 
right  be  done  to  those  who  are  weak  or  without  human 
helpers,  to  stand  by  them  and  plead  their  cause,  such  as 
the  widow  or  the  orphan.  Justice  is  to  be  done  to  all,  and 
the  judge  is  warned  against  favouring  the  poor  unjustly 
because  they  are  poor ;  but  it  is  a  sacred  duty  to  see  that 
right  is  done  to  those  whose  means  of  doing  themselves 
justice  are  limited.  Job  claims  this  kind  of  righteousness 
for  himself  :  "  I  was  a  father  to  the  needy  :  and  the  cause  of 
him  that  I  knew  not  I  searched  out"(xxix.  16).  And 
God  is  the  father  of  the  fatherless  and  the  judge  of  the 
widow. 

The  function  of  the  judge  was  wider  than  with  us ; 
he  was  both  judge  and  advocate ;  not  judging  as  judges 
do  now,  on  evidence  set  before  him  by  others,  but  discover- 
ing the  evidence  for  himself.  So  the  Messiah  in  His 
function  as  judge  does  not  judge  after  the  sight  of  His 
eyes,  nor  decide  after  the  hearing  of  His  ears,  but  judges 
the  poor  with  righteousness — with  an  insight  given  to  Him 
by  the  Spirit  of  God  which  fills  Him  (Isa.  xi.  3).  But  the 
actions  of  God  are  judged  in  His  various  relations  to  men, 

^  Oil  this  see  further  in  the  autliur's   TJie  Bonk  of  Ezekicl  the  Prophet, 
p.  36  {Cambi-idye  Bible  for  Schools  and  Colleges). — Ed. 


134   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

just  as  the  actions  of  a  man  would  be  judged.  The  dog- 
matic principle  tliat  men  being  sinners  nothing  is  due  to 
them,  is  not  the  foundation  on  wliich  judgments  in  regard 
to  God  are  based.  No  doubt  tliis  idea  is  often  recognised, 
and  in  the  earliest  times :  "  I  am  unworthy  of  the  least  of 
all  the  mercies  .  .  .  which  Thou  hast  showed  unto  Thy 
servant"  (Gen.  xxxii.  10).  The  principle  of  His  grace  is 
frequently  emphasised.  But  in  passing  judgment  on  His 
actions  in  relation  to  men  this  principle  lies  further  back, 
and  His  actual  relations  to  men  are  made  the  basis  of  the 
judgment, — the  fact  that  He  is  God  of  His  people,  father 
of  His  children,  and  the  like. 

And  the  principle  of  judgment  applied  is  very  much 
what  would  be  apphed  to  men.  It  is  'right,'  for  example, 
among  men  to  forgive  on  confession  of  wrong,  and  God 
is  righteous  in  forgiving  the  penitent :  "  Deliver  me  from 
bloodguiltiness,  0  God,  Thou  God  of  my  salvation :  and  my 
tongue  shall  sing  aloud  of  Thy  righteousness  "  (Ps.  li.  1 4). 
This  language  is  also  used  in  the  New  Testament :  "  If 
we  confess  our  sins,  He  is  faithful  and  righteous  to  forgive 
us  our  sins"  (1  John  i.  9);  and  again:  "God  is  not 
unrighteous  to  forget  your  work,  and  the  love  which 
ye  shewed  toward  His  name"  (Heb.  vi.  10).  There  is 
therefore  no  antithesis  between  righteousness  and  grace. 
The  exercise  of  grace,  goodness,  forgiveness  may  be  called 
righteousness  in  God.  Thus  :  "  Answer  me  in  Thy  faithful- 
ness and  in  Thy  righteousness,  and  enter  not  into  judgment 
with  Thy  servant :  for  in  Thy  sight  shall  no  man  living 
be  found  righteous"  (Ps.  cxliii.  1).  Here  righteousness  is 
opposed  to  entering  into  judgment,  i.e.  to  the  very  thing 
wliich  technically  and  dogmatically  is  called  righteousness. 

When  the  relations  of  God  to  His  people  Israel  are 
considered,  the  question  of  His  righteousness  becomes  more 
complicated.  There  are  two  or  three  points  to  be  noticed. 
First,  His  relation  to  His  people  internally,  when  the  other 
nations  of  the  world  are  not  considered.  Here  He  acts  as 
a  righteous  ruler.  He  punishes  their  sin.  As  Isaiah 
('xxviii  17)  expresses  it.  He  "makes  judgment  (justice)  the 


CHASTISEMENT   AND   JUDGMENT  135 

line  and  ligliteousness  the  pliunniet"  with  wliicli  Ho 
measures  and  estimates  the  people.  His  allHctiuu;  them 
may  be  only  chastisement  up  to  a  certain  [)oint,  hut  it  may 
go  further  and  become  judgment,  and  all  His  judgments 
are  done  in  righteousness.  His  being  God  of  Israel  does 
not  invalidate  the  general  principle  of  Plis  righteous  dealing 
with  men.  So  far  from  invalidathig  it,  it  ratlier  contirms 
it :  "  You  only  have  I  known  of  all  the  families  of  tlie 
earth,  therefore  will  I  visit  your  transgressions  upon  you  " 
(Amos  iii.  2).  The  relations  of  God  and  people  are 
altogether  moral.  When,  however.  His  chastisements  pro- 
duce repentance.  He  is  again  righteous  in  returning  to  His 
people  and  saving  them.  These  two  principles  apply  to 
the  people  as  a  whole ;  they  apply  also  to  the  individuals 
of  the  people,  as  is  seen  in  the  case  of  David,  when  he 
greatly  sinned  and  greatly  repented  of  his  sin.  But,  of 
course,  the  solidarity  of  the  individuals  and  nation  often 
involved  those  who  were  innocent  in  the  national  judg- 
ments, and  this  became  the  cause  of  extreme  perplexity  to 
the  minds  of  many  in  later  times. 

Second,  there  is  the  case  wlien  the  other  nations  are 
drawn  into  His  operations  with  His  people.  So  far  from 
Israel  being  insured  against  the  nations  because  it  was  in 
name  His  people,  the  nations  are  represented  as  being 
used  as  instruments  in  chastising  the  people.  And  these 
chastisements  are  an  illustration  of  God's  righteousness. 
"The  Lord  of  hosts  shall  be  exalted  in  judgment,  and  God 
the  Holy  One  sanctified  in  righteousness"  (Isa.  v.  16); 
"  For  though  thy  people  Israel  be  as  the  sands  of  the  sea, 
only  a  remnant  of  them  shall  return  :  a  consummation  is 
determined,  a  stream  flooded  with  righteousness"  (x.  22). 
The  moral  character  of  the  nations  who  are  used  to  chastise 
Israel  does  not  come  into  account.  They  are  mere  instru- 
ments in  God's  hand :  "  0  Assyrian,  the  rod  used  by  ]\Iine 
anger"  (x.  5).  And  when  the  purpose  they  served  was 
effected  they  were  flung  aside ;  or  when  they  overstepped 
their  commission,  and  cherished  purposes  of  concpiest  of 
their  own,  they  fell  themselves  under  God's  anger,  particu- 


136   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

larly  when  they  dealt  harshly  with  Israel,  and  oppressed 
where  they  were  only  used  to  chastise.  So  it  is  said  to 
Babylon :  "  I  was  wroth  with  My  people  .  .  .  and  gave 
them  into  thine  hand :  thou  didst  show  them  no  mercy ; 
upon  the  aged  hast  tliou  very  heavily  laid  thy  yoke. 
Thou  didst  not  lay  such  things  to  heart,  neither  didst 
consider  the  issue  thereof"  (Isa.  xlvii.  6);  and  in  Zech. 
God  says :  "  I  am  very  sore  displeased  with  the  nations 
that  are  at  ease:  for  I  was  but  a  little  displeased  [with 
My  people],  and  they  helped  forward  the  affliction"  (i.  15). 
In  all  the  earlier  prophets  the  calamities  that  befall 
Israel  are  illustrations  of  God's  righteousness.  They  are 
all  absorbed  in  the  idea  of  Israel's  sin,  and  the  character  of 
the  heathen  nations  used  to  chastise  the  people  little 
occupies  their  attention.  No  doubt  they  all,  especially 
from  Isaiah  downwards,  have  an  outlook ;  and  the  time  of 
the  nations  will  come,  and  Assyria  shall  be  broken  upon 
the  mountains  of  Israel,  when  the  Lord  shall  have  per- 
formed His  short  work,  i.e.  His  work  of  chastisement  upon 
Jerusalem.  But  naturally  when  Israel  had  been  long  in 
exile  the  hardships  they  suffered  at  the  hand  of  the  nations 
were  regarded  as  oppressive.  They  were  so.  As  against 
the  nations,  Israeljelt  itself  to  be  righteous :  the  nations 
were  mjurious  and  unjust.  Jehovah's  interposition  there- 
fore for  His  people  was  claimed  as  right :  it  was  righteous. 
Hence  in  the  second  part  of  Isaiah,  Israel  complains  that 
her  God  has  forgotten  her  right :  "  Why  sayest  thou,  0 
Jacob,  and  speakest,  0  Israel,  My  way  {i.e.  what  I  suffer) 
is  hid  from  the  Lord,  and  my  right  is  disregarded  by  my 
God  ?"  (Isa.  xl.  27).  And  in  another  place,  "They  ask  of 
Me  judgments  of  righteousness"  (Iviii.  2);  and  again, "  There- 
fore is  judgment  far  from  us,  neither  does  righteousness 
accrue  to  us"  (lix.  9),  i.e.  they  do  not  enjoy  God's  inter- 
position, which  would  be  on  His  part  righteousness.  Hence, 
in  general,  God's  interpositions  to  save  His  people  are 
called  His  righteousness, — a  way  of  speaking,  however, 
which  is  very  old,  occurring  in  the  Song  of  Deborah, — the 
righteous   acts    of    His    rule   in   Israel.      The    assumption 


Israel's  appeals  to  righteousness        137 

underlying  this  usage  is  that  the  peoi)le  as  against  the 
nations  that  oppressed  them  were  in  the  right,  and 
Jehovah's  vindication  of  them  was  a  righteous  act. 

But  this  leads  on  to  what  is  perhaps  the  most  interest- 
ing usage  of  the  term  rigliteousness,  whether  it  be  of  God  or 
man ;  for  God's  righteousness  and  man's  come  into  contact 
or  run  into  one  another.  For  Israel  to  claim  God's  inter- 
position on  their  behalf  because  they  were  righteous,  even 
as  against  the  nations,  might  be  thought  to  imply  on  their 
part  a  superficial  conscience.  Even  if  they  were  superior  to 
the  nations  in  morals,  as  no  doubt  they  were,  their  sense  of 
their  own  sin  before  God,  it  might  be  supposed,  would  restrain 
them  from  pleading  their  righteousness,  which  at  the  best 
was  but  comparative.  But  this  was  by  no  means  their 
plea,  as  it  is  expressed  in  such  a  prophet  as  the  Second 
Isaiah.  In  the  last  years  of  Judah  and  in  the  Exile 
Israel's  religion  had  attained  its  maturity.  Virtually  no 
more  growth  can  be  observed  in  it.  What  we  observe  is 
not  enlargement  or  addition  in  the  religion,  but  its  arrival 
at  self-consciousness.  From  being  before  naive,  and  in- 
structive and  unconscious  in  its  utterances  and  life,  it  now 
attains  to  reflection  on  itself  and  the  consciousness  of  its 
own  meaning.  The  conflict  of  the  nation  with  other 
nations,  and  their  mixture  among  the  peoples  of  the  world, 
gave  the  people  knowledge  of  the  world  religions,  and  com- 
pelled comparison  with  their  own.  And  their  own  was 
true,  the  others  false.  They  had  in  them  the  true  know- 
ledge of  the  true  God.  It  is  quite  possible  tliat  this 
conviction  was  an  ancient  one ;  indeed,  it  is  certain  that 
it  was,  if,  at  any  rate,  Isa.  ii.  belong  to  that  prophet. 
Because  there  the  nations  are  represented  as  all  exliorting 
one  another  to  go  up  to  Jerusalem  to  the  house  of  the  God 
of  Jacob,  that  He  may  teach  them  of  His  ways,  and  that  they 
may  walk  in  His  paths.  The  author  of  this  was  already 
conscious  that  his  religion  was  the  true  one,  and  that  it 
would  become  universal. 

But,  in  the  age  of  the  Exile  and  later,  the  conditions 
of  the  world  and  of  the  people  caused  this  consciousness 


138       THE   THEOLOGY    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

to  be  much  more  widely  spread  and  vivid.  When,  there- 
fore, Israel  pleads  before  God  tliat  it  is  in  the  right  as 
against  the  nations,  the  meaning  is  not  that  the  people 
are  as  persons  or  as  a  nation  morally  just  or  righteous. 
The  meaning  is  that  their  cause  is  right.  In  the  conflict 
of  religions  their  cause  is  righteous.  As  a  factor  in  the 
world,  in  the  destinies  of  mankind,  they  have  the  right 
to  which  victory  is  due.  The  cause  of  Jehovah  is  con- 
tained within  them.  They  possess  the  true  knowledge 
of  the  true  God,  and  the  revolutions  of  the  nations,  the 
conflicts  of  opposing  forces,  going  on  then  and  at  all  times, 
are  but  the  great  drama,  the  denouement  of  which  is  the 
victory  of  Jehovah's  cause,  which  Israel  has  within  it. 
lids  _is. jvhat  is  meant  when  Israel  is  called  the  Servant  of 
the  Lord— His  public  servant  on  the  stage  of  the  world  to 
bring.  His.  purpose  to  fulfilment.  The  consciousness  and 
the  faith  of  this  Servant  are  expressed  in  the  exquisite 
passage,  Isa.  1.  4-9,  where  the  Servant  says :  "  The  Lord 
God  hath  given  me  the  tongue  of  disciples,  that  I  should 
know  how  to  uphold  him  that  is  weary.  .  .  .  The  Lord 
God  opened  mine  ear,  and  I  was  not  rebellious,  neither 
turned  away  backward.  I  gave  my  back  to  the  smiters, 
and  my  cheeks  to  them  that  plucked  off  the  hair.  .  .  . 
For  the  Lord  God  helpeth  me;  therefore  I  have  not  been 
confounded :  therefore  do  I  set  my  face  like  a  flint,  and  I 
know  that  I  shall  not  be  put  to  shame.  He  is  near  that 
will  justify  me ;  who  will  contend  with  me  ?  Behold,  the 
Lord  God  helpeth  me;  who  is  he  that  shall  put  me  in 
the  wrong  ?  Behold,  they  shall  all  wax  old  as  a  garment ; 
the  moth  shall  consume  them."  This  is  the  cause,  the 
cause  as  wide  as  the  world ;  indeed,  the  world-cause,  the 
cause  of  Israel  against  the  world — in  truth,  Jehovah's  cause. 
The  Servant  is  conscious  of  its  meaning,  and  his  faith 
assures  him  of  victory — He  is  near  that  will  justify  me. 
To  give  this  cause  victory  is  an  act  of  God's  righteousness. 
"  He  is  near,"  the  Servant  says,  "  who  will  justify  me  " ; 
that  is,  the  justification  is  imminent,  close  at  hand.  To 
justify  is   to    show   to    be    in   the   right.     Now   the    idea 


IDEA    OF   JUSTIFICATION  139 

prevailing  in  tliose  clays  was  that  the  relatioil-Qf-God  to 
a^man  or  to  a  people  was  always  retlected  in  the  outward 
circumstances  of  the^nian  or  nation,  l^rosperitj  was  the 
token  of  Uod's  favour,  and  aHversity  of  His  displeasure. 
Tlence  Job,  speaking  of  a  man  who  had  been  sick  unto 
death,  but  was  restored,  says :  "  He  prayeth  unto  God  and 
He  is  favourable  unto  him :  so  that  he  seeth  His  face  with 
joy ;  and  He  restoreth  unto  man  his  righteousness  "  (xxxiii. 
26),  i.e.  his  restoration  to  health  is  a  giving  back  to  him 
his  righteousness, — it  is  the  token  that  he  is  now  right 
before  God.  Similarly,  when  the  great  calamities  of 
drought  and  locusts  to  which  the  people  had  been 
subjected  are  removed,  and  rain  bringing  fertility  and 
plenty  is  again  sent  from  heaven,  it  is  said :  "  Be 
glad,  ye  children  of  Zion,  and  rejoice  in  the  Lord  your 
God :  for  He  shall  give  you  the  former  rain  for  righteous- 
ness" (Joel  ii.  23) — •^i^l^?,  ie.  in  token  of  righteousness, 
right  standing  with  God.  In  no  other  way  could  God's 
justification  of  the  Servant  be  approved  to  the  eyes  of  the 
nations  or  verified  to  the  heart  of  the  people  except  by  th 
people's  restoration  to  prosperity  and  felicity  in  their  own 
land.  Then  Israel  would  be  the  righteous  nation  among 
the  nations.  Then  would  begin  to  operate  all  the  redempt- 
ive forces  within  Israel,  and  to  flow  out  among  the  peoples. 
Then  she  would  be  as  the  dew  among  the  nations,  not 
breaking  the  bruised  reed  nor  quenching  the  glimmering 
light,  till  she  brought  forth  right  also  to  the  nations — 
"  Arise,  shine ;  for  thy  light  is  come.  .  .  .  And  the  nations 
shall  come  to  thy  light,  and  kings  to  the  brightness  of  thy 
shining  "  (Isa.  Ix.  1—3). 

Hence  in  the  Old  Testament  justification  has  always 
this  outer  side  of  prosperity  and  restoration,  at  least 
when  spoken  of  the  people.  It  does  not  consist  in  this, 
but  this  is  an  essential  element  in  it ;  this  is  that  which 
verifies  it  to  the  heart  of  the  people.  And  this  was 
usually  the  case  also  with  the  individual  man.  Even 
ordinarily  the  individual  probably  was  slow  to  realise  his 
sinfulness  or  God's  displeasure  except  he  fell  into  sickness 


140   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

(tr  iiiiBfortnnc,  and  on  the  other  liand  lie  craved  that  God'.s 
favour  sliould  approve  itself  to  liim  iu  his  external  hi'e ; 
when  his  eircunistances  reflected  it,  then  his  heart  felt  it. 
No  douht  in  some  instances  the  individual  saint  rose  to  he 
at  least  for  moments  independent  of  all  that  was  outward. 
His  faith  and  riglit  standing  hefore  God  was  a  self -verify- 
ing thing,  it  rellected  itself  in  his  consciousness ;  and  this 
evidence  of  his  conscience  mis^ht  be  so  strong^  as  to 
overbear  any  contrary  evidence  which  men  or  adverse 
circumstances  brought  against  him.  So  it  is  represented 
in  Job,  and  so  the  surprising  words  of  a  psalmist  over- 
whelmed with  calamities  :  "  Nevertheless  I  am  continually 
with  Thee"  (Ps.  Ixxiii.  23). 

There  are  two  further  points  which  may  be  briefly 
referred  to  in  regard  to  the  righteousness  of  God.  The 
mere  righteousness  of  God  as  an  attribute  of  His  nature 
does  not  require  much  investigation.  It  is  to  be  under- 
stood. But  His  righteousness  is  said  of  His  redemptive 
operations.  It  is  a  strange  thing  that  from  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem  onwards  Israel  never  attained  again  to  a  con- 
dition of  prosperity.  It  was  not  only  never  again  an 
independent  people,  but  its  condition  was  in  general  greatly 
depressed  and  miserable.  No  doubt  for  about  a  century  it 
was  ruled  by  the  Maccabean  princes,  but  the  period  was 
perhaps  the  most  barren  of  any  age  of  its  history.  Many 
scholars,  indeed,  have  found  Maccabean  Psalms,  but  it  must 
be  acknowledged  that  there  is  little  certainty  here.  At 
any  rate,  there  is  absolutely  no  evidence  that  the  highest 
hopes  of  the  people  in  regard  to  the  incoming  of  the  perfect 
kingdom  of  God  among  them  were  ever  connected  with 
any  of  the  Maccabean  princes.  It  was  not  when  prosperous, 
but  when  under  the  deepest  afflictions,  that  they  reached 
the  highest  thoughts  of  God  and  themselves.  Their  long-con- 
tinued calamities,  the  delay  in  the  realising  of  their  hopes 
concerning  their  redemption  and  God's  coming  in  His  king- 
dom, turned  their  thoughts  back  upon  themselves  to  find 
the  cause  of  such  protracted  disappointment.  And  all  the 
deepest  problems  of  religion  rose  before  them — wrath  and 


REDEMPTIVE   RIGHTEOUSNESS  141 

grace,  sin  and  forgiveness,  justification  and  righteousness. 
Israel,  of  course,  never  doubted  that  it  liad  within  it  tlio 
trutli  of  the  true  God,  but  the  brilliant  hopes  which  this 
consciousness  created  at  the  period  of  the  return  from  exile 
became  greatly  dimmed  and  faded.  Even  to  the  great 
prophet  of  the  Exile,  in  spite  of  his  faith,  the  outlook 
seemed  often  very  clouded.  Between  Israel,  the  ideal 
servant  of  the  Lord  with  a  mission  to  the  world,  and  the 
Israel  of  reality  the  contrast  was  almost  absolute — "  Who 
is  blind,  but  my  servant  ?  or  deaf,  as  my  messenger  whom  I 
send  ?  "  (Isa.  xlii.  1 9).  Israel  was  unrigliteous.  Its  salvation 
could  not  come  from  itself,  but  from  an  interposition  of 
God  on  its  behalf.  All  the  prophets  of  this  age — Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel,  and  Second  Isaiah — are  at  one  in  this.  The  first 
prophet  asks  in  reference  to  his  people,  "  Can  the  Ethiopian 
change  his  skin  ?  "  (xiii.  23).  Can  they  who  are  habituated 
to  do  evil  do  well  ?  And  he  can  solve  the  problem  only 
by  the  faith  that  Jehovah  will  yet  write  His  law  on  the 
people's  hearts.  But  it  is  only  the  Second  Isaiah  that 
calls  this  interposition  of  God,  and  His  deliverance  of  His 
people,  God's  righteousness.  In  this  use  of  it  righteousness 
is  frequently  parallel  to  salvation :  "  I  bring  near  My 
righteousness,  and  My  salvation  shall  not  tarry"  (xlvi.  13). 
Only  in  the  Lord,  shall  they  say,  is  righteousness  and 
strength :  "  In  the  Lord  shall  all  the  seed  of  Israel  be 
justified,  or  be  righteous,  and  shall  glory"  (xlv.  24,  25). 

When  this  is  called  righteousness  and  also  salvation, 
the  two  words  are  not  quite  equivalent.  Salvation  is  rather 
the  negative  side — deliverance  ;  righteousness,  the  positive. 
And  this  includes,  as  was  said  before,  the  external  felicity 
which  is  the  guarantee  to  the  nation's  heart  that  it  was 
justified  or  righteous.  This  is  the  outside  of  righteousness, 
indispensable,  but  only  the  outside.  The  inside  is  true 
righteousness  of  heart  and  life — "  My  people  shall  be  all 
righteous"  (Ix.  21);  "In  righteousness  shalt  thou  be 
established ;  thy  children  shall  be  all  taught  of  the  Lord  " 
(hv.  13);  "He  hath  clothed  mew^ith  the  garments  of  salva- 
tion. He  hath  covered  me  with  the  robe  of  righteousness" 


142   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

(Ixi.  10).  This  iiu,litcoiisnoss  is  thus  sometimes  called  the 
people's  and  sometimes  God's.  It  is  the  people's  because 
tliey  possess  it,  though  it  has  been  freely  given  to  them. 
There  is  considerable  approach  to  New  Testament  phrase- 
ology and  thought  here,  though  this  righteousness  of  God 
which  He  bestows  upon  the  people  is  not  mere  forensic 
justification.  Besides  the  forgiveness  of  sin,  it  includes 
inward  righteousness  of  heart,  and  the  outward  felicity 
which  reflects  God's  favour,  and  is  the  seal  of  it  to  the 
people. 

But  why  is  this  called  God's  righteousness  ?  Scarcely 
merely  because  He  gives  it.  Neither  can  this  interposition 
and  deliverance  of  Israel  be  called  righteousness  because  it 
was  right  to  interpose  in  behalf  of  Israel,  the  righteous 
nation.  This  cannot  well  be,  first,  inasmuch  as  Jehovah 
brings  this  righteousness  of  His  to  manifestation  just  because 
Israel  is  utterly  unrighteous.  In  Isa.  lix.  1 2  ff.  the  people 
confess  this :  "  Our  transgressions  are  multiplied  before 
Thee,  and  our  sins  testify  against  us  .  .  .  in  transgressing 
and  denying  the  Lord,  and  turning  away  from  following 
our  God,  speaking  oppression  and  revolt,  conceiving  and 
uttering  from  the  heart  words  of  falsehood.  Yea,  truth 
is  lacking ;  he  that  departeth  from  evil  maketh  himself  a 
prey."  This  is  the  condition  of  the  people.  And  the 
Lord  saw  it,  and  it  displeased  Him  that  there  was  no 
judgment :  "  He  saw  that  there  was  no  man,  and  wondered 
that  there  was  none  to  interpose :  therefore  His  own  arm 
brought  salvation  to  Him  ;  and  His  righteousness,  it  upheld 
Him.  He  put  on  righteousness  as  a  breastplate,  and  an 
helmet  of  salvation  upon  his  head."  .  .  .  And,  secondly^ 
because  this  righteousness  of  His  is  given  by  Him  not  only 
to  Israel  but  to  the  nations :  "  Attend,  0  My  people,  unto 
Me :  for  torah,  teaching,  shall  go  forth  from  Me,  and  I  will 
make  My  judgment,  i.e.  justice  or  right  judgment,  to  rest 
for  a  light  of  the  peoples.  My  righteousness  is  near ;  My 
salvation  is  gone  forth,  and  Mine  arms  shall  judge,  i.e. 
justly  rule,  the  nations  ;  the  isles  shall  wait  for  Me,  and  on 
Mine  arm  shall  they  trust "  (Isa.  li.  4,  5). 


JEHOVAH  S    RIGHTEOUSNESS  143 

These  passages  seein  to  give  the  key  to  tliis  use  of  tlie 
word  righteousness.  It  is  not  a  Divine  attiibute.  It  is  a 
Divine  effect — it  is  something  produced  in  the  world  by 
God,  a  condition  of  the  world  produced  by  God,  a  condition 
of  righteousness,  called  His  not  only  because  He  produces 
it,  but  also  because  when  it  is  produced  men  and  the  world 
will  be  in  attributes  tliat  wliich  He  is.  This  righteousness 
of  God  appears  to  the  prophet  to  be  sometliing  in  itself, 
something  independent  and  eternal :  "  Lift  up  your  eyes 
to  the  heavens,  and  look  upon  the  earth  beneath :  for  the 
heavens  shall  vanish  away  like  smoke,  and  tlie  earth  shall 
wax  old  like  a  garment :  but  My  salvation  shall  be  for  ever, 
and  My  righteousness  shall  not  be  abolished  "  (Isa.  li.  6), 

To  this  prophet  what  characterised  the  w^orld  was 
unrighteousness,  violence,  bloodshed,  devastating  wars,  cruel 
idolatries.  This,  in  his  view,  was  due  to  the  false  gods 
which  they  worshipped.  Only  knowledge  of  the  true  God 
would  remedy  it.  For  this  was  not  the  will  of  Him  who 
in  truth  created  the  world  :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  that 
created  the  heavens — He  is  God  ;  who  formed  the  earth 
and  made  it ;  He  created  it  not  to  be  a  wilderness,  He 
formed  it  to  be  inhabited"  (Isa.  xlv.  18).  And  in  like 
manner  the  mission  of  the  Servant  of  the  Lord  was  to 
"  bring  forth  judgment  to  tne  nations  "  (Isa.  xlii.  1),  i.e.  not 
the  true  religion,  but  civil  right,  equity,  humanity  among 
the  nations.  This  could  only  be,  no  doubt,  by  making  them 
know  the  true  God  ;  but  judgment  was  not  this  knowledge, 
but  the  secondary  effect  of  it — it  was  righteousness  as  con- 
duct and  life.  This  is  the  thing  called  by  the  prophet 
Jehovalis  righteousness ;  it  is  a  condition  of  the  earth,  of 
mankind.  It  is  Jehovah  that  brings  it  in ;  to  bring  it  in 
is  the  goal  of  all  His  operations,  and  it  is  the  final  effect  of 
them.  It  is  not  His  own  righteousness  as  an  attribute ; 
though,  of  course,  it  corresponds  to  His  own  being,  for 
"  the  righteous  Lord  lovetli  rigliteousness "  (Ps.  xi.  7). 
Only  l)y  the  knowledge  of  Him  can  it  be  attained.  When 
attained  it  is  salvation  :  "  Look  unto  Me,  and  be  saved,  all 
the  ends  of  the  earth :  for  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else 


144       THE   THEOLOGY    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

— a  riglitcous  God  and  a  Saviour"  (Isa.  xli.  22).  The 
antitliesis  which  in  dogmatics  we  are  familiar  with  is  a 
riglitcous  or  just  God  and  yet  a  Saviour.  The  Old  Testa- 
ment puts  it  ditlerently, — a  righteous  God,  and  therefore  a 
Saviour.  It  is  His  own  righteousness  that  causes  Him  to 
bring  in  righteousness.  All  His  redemptive  operations  are 
performed  in  the  sphere  of  this  righteousness.  Israel's  first 
call :  "  I  have  called  thee  in  righteousness  "  (Isa.  xlii.  6)  ; 
His  raising  up  Cyrus :  "  I  have  raised  him  up  in  righteous- 
ness" (Isa.  xlv.  13),  and  all  His  operations,  have  for  their 
goal  this  condition  of  men  and  the  world,  and  all  are  per- 
formed with  a  view  to  it.  And  when  the  great  movement 
has  reached  its  final  goal,  righteousness  on  earth  is  the 
issue :  "  Behold,  I  create  new  heavens,  and  a  new  earth 
wherein  dwelleth  righteousness"  (Isa.  Ixv.  17). 

2.   The  Holiness  of  God, 

The  "  Holiness "  of  Jehovah  is  a  very  obscure  subject, 
and  the  most  diverse  views  regarding  it  have  prevailed 
among  Old  Testament  students.  It  is  not  possible  to 
discuss  these  different  views.  I  will  rather  set  down  first, 
in  a  few  propositions,  the  results  which  comparison  of  the 
Old  Testament  passages  seems  to  give ;  and  then  refer  to 
these  propositions  briefly  by  way  of  illustration.  The 
terminology  is  as  follows : — 

^■^i^,  to  be  holy ;  Pi.,  Hiph.  to  sanctify,  hallow,  con- 
secrate, dedicate ;  t^'Hp,  holy,  also  as  noun,  '  Holy  One ' 
(of  Jehovah),  '  saint '  of  men,  or  '  holy  ones '  of  angels ; 
^'^p,  lioly  thing,  holiness,  thing  hallowed,  sanctuary,  and 
frequently  in  combination,  as  '  holy  hill,'  hill  of  holiness, 
holy  arm,  people,  cities,  etc. ;  ti'^pp,  sanctuary,  holy  place. 
Now,  with  regard  to  this  term,  these  things  may  be  said — 

(1)  The  word  'to  be  holy'  and  the  adjective  'holy' 
had  originally,  like  all  such  words,  a  pliysical  sense,  now 
completely  lost,  not  only  in  Hebrew  but  in  all  the  other 
Shemitic  languages. 

(2)  Whatever  this  meaning  was  it  became  applied  very 


ORIGINAL    USE   OF    THE    TERM    '  HOLY  '  145 

early  to  Jehovah  iu  Hebrew,  and  to  the  gods  in  Slieinitic 
heatlienism.  It  is  so  much  peculiar  to  the  gods,  e.g.  in 
Phoenician,  that  tlie  gods  are  spoken  of  as  tlie  '  holy  gods ' ; 
the  term  holy  being  a  mere  cpithdon  ornans,  having  no 
force.  The  same  phrase  occurs  also  in  the  Book  of 
Daniel. 

(3)  The  word  is  applied,  however,  also  to  men  and 
things,  not  as  describing  any  quality  in  them,  but  to 
indicate  tlicir  relation  to  deity.  '  Holy '  said  of  men  aud 
things  originally  means  merely  hcloivjing  to  deity,  sacred. 
It  is  probable  that  this  use  of  the  word,  though  naturally 
also  very  ancient,  is  secondary  and  applied.  That  this 
sense  should  be  ancient  as  well  as  the  other  is  natural ;  for 
wherever  gods  were  believed  in  and  worshipped  there  were 
persons  and  things  employed  in  their  worship,  and  dedicated 
to  them,  and  therefore  also  *  holy.' 

(4)  In  its  original  use  the  term  *  holy/  when  applied 
either  to  God  or  to  men,  does  not  express  a  moral  quality. 
Of  course,  when  applied  to  things  it  could  not  express  a 
moral  quality,  though  it  might  express  a  ceremonial  quality; 
but  in  the  oldest  use  of  the  word,  even  when  applied  to 
men,  it  expresses  rather  a  relation,  simply  helonging  to 
Jehovah  or  the  gods ;  and  when  applied  to  Jehovah  it  rather 
expresses  His  transcendental  attributes  or  that  which  we 
call  Godhead,  as  opposed  to  the  human. 

(5)  In  use  as  applied  to  Jehovah  it  is  a  general  term 
expressing  Godhead.  But,  of  course,  '  Godhead '  was  never 
a  mere  abstract  conception.  Some  attribute  or  characteristic 
was  always  in  the  person's  view  which  betokened  Godhead. 
Hence  the  term  *  holy '  is  applied  to  Jehovah  when  mani- 
festing any  attributes  which  are  the  token  of  Godhead,  or 
which  men  consider  to  be*  contained  in  Godhead;  e.g. 
transcendent  majesty,  glory,  greatness,  power,  righteousness, 
or  in  later  prophets  as  Ezekiel  *  sole-Godhead,'  when 
Jehovah  is  spoken  of.  None  of  these  attributes  are 
synonyms  of  holiness  strictly ;  they  are  ratlier  elements 
in  holiness.  But  Jehovah  reveals  Himself  as  'holy'  when 
He    manifests    any    one    of   these    attributes ;  and   He   is 

lO 


146        THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

'sanctified'  among  men  when  tliey  attribute  to  Him  any 
of  these  Divine  qualities ;  just  as,  on  the  other  hand,  He  is 
*  profaned '  or  desecrated  when  men  fail  to  ascribe  these 
attributes  to  Him,  or  act  in  forgetfulness  of  them.  Thus 
'  lioly '  acquired  contents,  and  one  prophet  puts  in  one 
kind  of  contents  into  it  and  another  another.  But  it  is 
impoi'tant  first  to  seize  the  general  idea ;  the  development 
of  details  which  the  idea  may  contain  was,  no  doubt,  a 
historical  process. 

(6)  Similarly  *holy'  in  regard  to  men  or  things, 
originally  expressing  a  relation  merely,  namely,  the  belonging 
to  Jehovah,  naturally  became  filled  out  with  contents 
precisely  parallel  to  the  contents  put  into  '  holy '  when 
applied  to  Jehovah.  Men  who  belonged  to  Jehovah  must 
have  the  same  character,  so  far  as  was  possible  to  men,  as 
Jehovah ;  the  same  ethical  character,  at  least,  and  the  same 
purity.  Things  that  belonged  to  Him  must  have  at  least 
that  purity  which  things  are  capable  of  having. 

(7)  In  order  to  get  a  background  for  the  idea  of  holiness 

and  throw  it  into  relief,  the  opposite  ideas  need  to  be  looked 

at.     These  are  hh,  profane,  and  ?^n,  to  profane,  both  also  old 

words.     '  Profane '  is  the  opposite  of  '  holy  '  when  applied 

to  things ;  and  to  '  profane '  is  to  desecrate,  to  take  away, 

or  at  least  detract  from  the  '  holiness '  w^hich  belongs  to 

Jehovah,  or  anything  that  being  His  is  holy,  such  as  His 

sanctuary,  His  name.  His   Sabbath,  His  people,  and   His 

land.       Of    course,    words    like   '  sanctify  '   and  '  profane  ' 

always  acquire  in  language  an  extended  use,  less  exact  than 

their  primary  use.     Hence  writers  speak  of  sanctifying  a 

fast  or  a  war,  i.e.  a  fast  to  Jehovah,  and  a  \\q^y  for  Jehovah, 

in  a  somewhat  general  sense  (Joel  i.  14,  ii.  15,  iii.  9).     The 

heathen  '  profane '  Jehovah's  sanctuary  when  they  enter  it, 

and  His  land  when  tliey  overrun  it  or  take  possession  of  it. 

Jehovah  '  profanes '  His  people  by  casting  them  out  of  His 

land,  and  making  them  to  appearance  no  more  His ;  He 

'  profanes '   or  desecrates  the  prince  of  Tyre,  a  being  who 

arrogated  deity  to  himself,  saying,  *'  I  am  God,  I  dwell  in 

the  seat  of  God,"  when  He  cast  him  down  out  of  his  fancied 


ETHICAL    AND    CEREMONIAL   USES  147 

Divine  scat,  and  gave  him  into   the  hands  of  Nel)ucliad- 
nezzar,  tlic  terrible  one  of  the  nations  (Ezek.  xxviii.). 

(8)  The  consequences  of  these  last  propositions  are 
easily  seen.  On  the  one  hand,  Jehovah's  presence  sanctifies, 
because  it  makes  to  be  His  all  around  it — primarily,  the 
liouse  in  which  He  dwells,  which  becomes  a  '  sanctuary ' ; 
then  in  a  wider  circle  Zion,  which  becomes  His  '  holy '  hill, 
and  Jerusalem  the  '  holy  city ' ;  and  then  in  the  widest 
circle  the  land  of  Israel,  which  is  the  holy  land — and  His 
people  Israel,  the  holy  people.  On  the  other  hand,  an 
opposite  effect  may  be  produced  by  the  presence  of  that 
which  is  opposed  to  Jehovah,  sin  and  impurity.  The  sins 
of  Israel  in  their  worshipping  other  gods  than  Jehovah,  and 
worshipping  Jehovah  in  a  false  manner,  '  profaned '  the 
land,  that  it  spued  them  out  (Lev.  xviii.  28).  Much  more 
did  their  sins,  adhering  to  them,  and  their  practices  even  in 
the  Temple  precincts,  desecrate  Jehovah's  sanctuary,  so  that 
He  could  no  more  abide  in  it,  but  forsook  it  and  gave  it 
over  to  destruction ;  cf .  Ezek.  xxxvii.  28:  "  The  heathen 
shall  know  that  I  the  Lord  do  sanctify  Israel,  when  My 
sanctuary  shall  be  in  the  midst  of  them."  Even  Jehovah 
Himself  may  be  profaned  or  desecrated,  but  particularly  His 
holy  name.  Especially  is  it  so  when  that  reverend  name 
'  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel,'  is  compromised  in  the  eyes 
of  the  heathen  through  the  calamities  which  befall  Israel. 
Israel  by  their  unfaithfulness  compelled  Jehovah  to  send 
severe  judgments  on  them,  and  cast  them  out  of  their  land. 
The  heathen,  observing  this,  concluded  that  Jehovah  the 
God  of  Israel  was  a  feeble  Deity,  unable  to  protect  His 
people.  They  naturally  were  unable  to  rise  to  the  idea 
that  Jehovah's  rule  of  His  people  might  be  a  moral  one, — 
they  inferred  at  once  His  want  of  power,  saying,  "  These 
are  the  people  of  Jehovah,  and  lo,  they  are  gone  forth  out 
of  His  land."  Thus  Israel  profaned  Jehovah's  holy  name, 
caused  it  to  be  detracted  from  in  the  eyes  of  the  nations. 

(9)  Finally,  the  development  of  the  idea  of  holiness  may 
be  regarded  as  moving  on  two  lines,  the  ethical,  and  the 
aesthetic  or  ceremonial.     The  word  *  holy  '  while  expressing 


148       THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD   TESTAMENT 

'  Godlicad '  did  not  express  tliis  idea  altogether  abstractly, 
but  always  seized,  on  each  occasion  when  used,  upon  some 
attribute,  or  connoted  some  attribute  whicli  betokened  deity, 
such  as  majesty,  or  purity,  or  glory,  and  the  like.  In  the 
older  prophets  and  in  the  older  literature  outside  the  Law, 
these  attributes  are  usually  tlie  ethical  attributes ;  e.g.  in 
Amos  ii.  7  a  man  and  his  father  go  in  to  the  same  maid 
to- "  profane  My  holy  name."  This  immorality  on  the  part 
of  those  who  were  His  people  desecrated  the  name  of  their 
God ;  it  bro^ight  the  name  of  Him  who  is  of  purer  eyes 
than  to  behold  iniquity,  down  into  the  region  of  mere 
nature  gods  like  Baal,  who  were  served  by  a  mere  following 
of  the  unrestrained  natural  instincts  and  appetites  of  men. 
Similarly,  Isaiah  when  he  beholds  Jehovah,  whom  the 
seraphim  unceasingly  praise  as  'holy,'  instinctively  thinks 
of  his  own  uncleanness.  But  he  uses  the  word  '  uncleanness  ' 
of  his  lips,  as  that  through  which  the  heart  expresses  itself, 
and  in  an  ethical  sense ;  and  hence  when  the  uncleanness 
showing  itself  in  his  lips  is  consumed  by  a  Divine  fire,  it  is 
said  that  his  iniquity  is  removed  and  his  sin  is  forgiven 
(vi.  5—7).  So  in  chap.  i.  16,  17  :  "Wash  you,  make  you 
clean  ;  put  away  the  evil  of  your  doings  from  before  Mine 
eyes ;  cease  to  do  evil ;  learn  to  do  well ;  seek  justice, 
relieve  the  oppressed,  judge  the  fatherless,  plead  the  cause 
of  the  widow," — where  uncleanness  is  again  exclusively 
moral.  * 

This  development  on  ethical  lines  can,  no  doubt,  be 
traced  through  all  the  following  literature.  It  is  perhaps 
to  be  specially  observed  in  the  phrase  'holy  Spirit.' 
Strangely  this  phrase,  so  common  afterwards,  occurs,  as 
we  have  seen,  only  three  times  in  the  Old  Testament,  once 
in  Ps.  li.,  and  twice  in  Isa.  Ixiii.  (10,  11).  Primarily,  the 
phrase  '  holy '  merely  emphasised  the  relation  of  the  Spirit 
to  Jehovah,  just  like  '  His  holy  arm  '■ — and  meant  very  much 
'His  Divine  Spirit';  but  more  lately  it  specially  denoted 
the  ethical  side  of  Jehovah's  being,  or  that  which  we  now 
call  His  '  holiness.' 

But  alongside  of   this   ethical  development  there  ran 


THE    DIVINE    JEALOUSY  149 

unquestionably  a  dcvclopniont  on  anollior  line,  wliicli  is  to 
be  called  aesthetic  or  ccienionial.  There  were  taken  up 
under  the  idea  of  holy,  or  tlie  reverse,  a  number  of  things 
and  actions  wliicli  to  us  now  liave  no  moral  significance, 
but  some  of  wliich  have  still  a'stlietic  meaning,  i.e.  have  a 
reference  to  feeling,  taste,  and  natural  instinctive  liking  or 
disliking.     In  this  use  '  holy  '  Ijecomes  nearly  equivalent  to 

*  clean,'  and  '  unholy  '  to  '  unclean.'  The  words,  however, 
are  by  no  means  synonymous.  The  clean  is  not  holy  in 
itself,  although  only  that  which  is  clean  can  be  made  holy. 
But  as  the  unclean  cannot  be  made  '  holy,'  unclean  comes 
to  be  pretty  nearly  synonymous  with  unholy.  "This,  how- 
ever, is  a  very  obscure  region. '" 

(10)  There  are  two  points  which  come  in  as  appendix 
to  these  preceding  points :  first,  the  meaning  of  the  ex- 
pression '  Holy  One  of  Israel,'  so  often  used  by  Isaiah ; 
and,  secondly,  the  meaning  of  what  is  called  the  jealousy 
(nS2i?)  of  Jehovah. 

Now,  in  the  phrase   '  Holy  One  of  Israel '  the  element 

*  of  Israel '  forms  no  part  of  the  idea  of  '  holy.'  The 
phrase  '  Holy  One  of  Israel '  is  exactly  equivalent  in  con- 
struction to  the  phrase  '  God  of  Israel' ;  so  in  Isa.  xxix.  23, 
"  Sanctify  the  Holy  One  of  Jacob,  and  fear  the  God  of 
Israel."  The  phrase  '  Holy  One  of  Israel '  means  that  He 
who  is  Kadosh  has  revealed  Himself  in  Israel — has  become 
the  God  of  Israel.  It  is  this  strange  twofold  fact  that  to 
Ezekiel  gives  the  clue  to  human  history.  Jehovah  is  the 
true  and  only  God ;  but  He  is  also  God  of  Israel ;  and  the 
nations  know  Him  only  as  God  of  Israel.  Hence  in  reveal- 
ing Himself  to  the  nations  He  can  only  do  so  through 
Israel ;  for  the  nations  know  Him  only  in  that  relation, 
not  in  His  absoluteness  as  the  true  and  only  God,  which, 
however,  He  is  at  the  same  time.  For  '  Holy  One  of 
Israel*  Ezekiel  says  'Holy  One  in  Israel'  (xxxix.  7). 
More  rarely  we  have  'His  Holy  One'  (Isa.  x.  17),  or  *  my 
Holy  One'  =  my  God  (Hal),  i.  12). 

The  *  jealousy,'  ^^^\>,  lit.  '  heat,'  of  Jehovah  may  be 
any  heightened  emotion  on  His  part,  e.y.  military  ardour 


150       THE   THEOLOGY   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

(Isa.  xlii.  13).  But  when  used  in  the  sense  of  jealousy 
proper  it  is  almost  equivalent  to  injured  self-consciousness ; 
it  is  the  heiglitened  emotion  accompanying  the  sense  of 
liaving  suffered  injury  either  in  Himself  or  in  that  which 
belongs  to  Him,  as  His  land,  His  people.  Hence  His 
jealousy  is  chiefly  awakened  by  the  worship  of  other  gods, 
by  want  of  reverence  for  His  '  holy  name,'  i.e.  His  recog- 
nition as  God  alone,  or  by  injury  done  to  that  which  is  His. 
A  few  further  notes  may  be  added  illustrative  of  the 
various  points  referred  to.  First,  as  to  the  meaning  of 
the  word  *  holy '  and  its  appropriation  to  designate  deity, 
or  that  which  pertains  to  deity.  The  form  tJniiJ  is  an 
adjective  or  a  participle  of  a  neuter  verb,  just  like  bins,  great ; 
ninn^  broad ;  "j)^?,  long,  and  numberless  others.  Though  no 
more  applied  in  a  physical  sense,  it  had  originally,  no 
doubt,  such  a  sense.  Possibly  its  primitive  meaning  was 
to  be  separated,  or  to  be  elevated,  or  to  be  lofty,  or  some- 
tliiug  of  the  kind.^  Whatever  exact  idea  it  expressed,  the 
idea  was  one  which  could  be  held  pre-eminently  to  charac- 
terise deity  or  the  gods  as  distinguished  from  men.  It 
was  so  suitable  for  this  that  it  was  almost  appropriated  to 
this  use.  It  is  certain  that  this  was  not  a  moral  idea  first, 
but  rather  some  physical  one  ;  at  least  w^e  may  say  this  is 
probable,  because  the  Phoenician  gods  are  not  moral  beings, 
and  yet  in  Phoenician  (Eshmunazar's  inscription)  the  gods 
are  called  the '  holy  gods!  The  same  expression  is  used  several 
times  in  Daniel,  e.g.  iv.  8,  9,  "  in  whom  is  the  spirit  of  the 
holy  gods  "  ;  so  v.  11,  and  quite  parallel  to  this  v.  14,  "  the 
spirit  of  the  gods  is  in  thee."  Possibly  the  passage  ii.  11 
might  interpret  the  term  *  holy '  —  none  other  can  show 
it  except  the  gods,  whose  dwelling  is  not  with  flesh.  At 
all  events  the  word  contained  a  meaning  which  was  felt 
appropriate  to  express  the  characteristic  of  the  gods,  or  of 
Jehovah  as  distingushed  from  men.  The  word  in  its  use 
l)ears  a  certain  analogy  to  the  ordinary  word  D'^nSx  for  God. 

*  On  this  see  more  at  length  in  the  article  on  Holiness  in  Hastings'  Diet 
of  the  BiUe  ;  also  Baiidissin's  Studien  z.  Sem.  Heligionsyeschichte  ;  Robertson 
Smith's  Reliyion  of  the  Semites,  pp.  91,  140  ff. — Ed. 


IDEA  OF  THE  TERM  *  HOLY  151 

'  The  holy  one/  tTFpn,  is  God ;  a  usage  which  went  furtlior. 
And  the  simple  word  trip,  without  the  arlicle,  was  used  lil^e 
a  proper  name — "  To  whom  then  will  ye  liken  me,  saith 
Kadosh  ?  "  (Isa.  xl.  25).  And  just  as  the  plural  Elohim  is 
used,  so  the  plural  Kedoshim  is  used  for  God :  "  Surely  I 
am  more  brutish  than  any  man.  ...  I  have  not  learned 
wisdom,  nor  liave  I  the  knowledge  of  Kedoshim  "  (Prov.  xxx. 
2) ;  and  perhaps  so  early  as  Hos.  x.  1 2.  And  to  this 
has  to  be  added  the  fact  that  the  angels  are  frequently 
called  Kecloshmiy  just  as  they  are  named  Ulohim,  or  Bene- 
Elohim,  sons,  i.e.  members,  of  the  Elohim, — Ijoth  epithets 
designating  them  as  a  class  of  beings  in  opposition  to  what 
man  is. 

'Holy,'  therefore,  was  not  primarily  an  epithet  for 
'  god  '  or  '  the  gods  * ;  it  expressed  the  idea  of  god  or  the  gods 
in  itself.  No  other  epithet  given  to  Jehovah  is  ever  used 
in  the  same  way.  For  example,  Jehovah  is  righteous ; 
but  '  the  righteous  one/  in  the  absolute  or  abstract  sense, 
is  a  term  never  applied  to  Him — nor  '  the  gracious/  and 
the  like.  It  seems  clear,  therefore,  that  Kadosh  is  not  a 
word  that  expresses  any  attribute  of  deity,  but  deity  itself ; 
though  it  remains  obscure  what  the  primary  idea  of  the 
word  was  which  long  before  the  period  of  literature  made 
it  fit  in  the  estimation  of  the  Shemitic  people  to  be  so 
used.  The  same  obscurity  hangs  over  the  commonest  of 
all  words  for  God.  But  two  things,  I  think,  are  clear  :  firsty 
that  it  was  a  term  describing  the  nature  of  Jehovah  rather 
than  His  thoughts,  what  He  was  in  His  being  or  person. 
And,  second,  it  was  therefore  a  word  that  was  mainly  used 
in  connection  with  worship.  Jehovah's  holiness  was  felt 
when  men  approached  Him.  When  they  were  in  His  pre- 
sence His  being  or  nature.  His  personality,  displayed  itself ; 
it  showed  sensibility  to  what  came  near  it,  or  it  reacted 
against  what  was  incongruous,  or  disturbing  to  it.  Hence, 
perhaps,  there  was  originally  a  feeling  that  to  approach 
Jehovah,  or  to  touch  that  which  was  holy,  was  dangerous. 
So  Isaiah  exclaims,  "  I  am  undone ;  for  mine  eyes  have 
seen  the  King  "  (vi.  5) ;  and  Uzzah,  who  put  out  his 'hand 


152   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

to  ioucli  the  holy  ark,  was  siiiittcii  wiUi  deatli.  This  may 
have  heou  tlie  older  view.  In  the  oldest  view  of  all,  the 
reaction  of  Jehovah  may,  so  to  speak,  liave  been  physical 
— the  creature  could  not  come  into  His  presence ;  but  in 
Isaiah's  mind  the  reaction  or  inliuence  of  Jehovah's  nature 
was  of  a  moral  kind.  It  is  not  quite  certain  whether 
in  the  Law  it  was  thought  that  there  was  danger  to  the 
unclean  person  who  approached  Jehovah,  or  merely  that 
such  approach  was  intolerable  to  Jehovah. 

Passing  over  some  other  points  that  do  not  need 
further  illustration,  it  may  be  remarked  that  the  prob- 
ability is  that  the  application  of  the  term  '  holy '  to 
things  is  secondary.  Things  are  called  '  holy '  as  belonging 
to  deity.  It  might  be  that  the  name  holy  was  applied  to 
things,  just  as  it  was  applied  to  deity,  to  express  something 
that  characterised  them.  If  '  holy  *  meant  '  separated,' 
the  things  might  be  so  called  as  separated  and  lying  apart. 
But  the  term  is  never  used  in  the  general  sense  of  separate 
or  lying  apart ;  it  always  signifies  separated  for  deity, 
belonging  to  the  sphere  of  deity.  In  Phoenician,  just  as  in 
Hebrew,  the  Hiphil  of  the  verb  is  used  in  the  sense  of  to 
dedicate  or  consecrate  to  deity.  All  this  being  sufficiently 
plain,  I  may  refer  to  the  usage  of  the  term  '  holy  '  as  applied 
on  the  one  hand  to  things  and  men,  and  on  the  other  hand 
asrain  to  God. 

o 

{a)  With  regard  to  things  and  men.  Of  course, 
*  holy '  or  '  holiness '  said  of  things  cannot  denote  a  moral 
attribute.  It  can  only  express  a  relation ;  and  the  relation 
is,  belonging  to  Jehovah,  dedicated  to  Godhead.  No  thing 
is  holy  of  itself  or  by  nature ;  and  not  everything  can  be 
made  holy ;  only  some  things  are  suitable.  But  suitability 
to  be  made  holy  and  holiness  are  things  quite  distinct. 
For  example,  only  the  clean  among  beasts  could  be  devoted 
to  Jehovah,  and  a  beast  so  devoted  is  holy ;  but  all  clean 
beasts  were  not  so  devoted.  The  ideas  of  '  holy '  and  '  clean  ' 
must  not  therefore  be  confused;  cleanness  is  only  a  con- 
dition of  holiness,  not  holiness  itself.  As  the  unclean  was, 
however,  incapable  of  being  made  holy,  the  case  is  some- 


THE    'holy'    and    the    *  CLEAN  *  153 

wliat  (liffercnt  here,  and  the  term  nurlean  ])eca,iiie,  as  we 
have  said,  ahiiost  syuoiiynious  witli  unJioly,  or  all  tliat  was 
incompatible  with  and  repugnant  to  the  Holy  One  of 
Israel.  According  to  the  nomenclature  in  use,  everything 
belonging  to  Jehovah,  whether  as  His  by  nature  or  as 
dedicated  to  Him,  is  called  holy.  Thus  writers  speak  of 
His  holy  arm,  His  holy  Spirit,  His  holy  word.  In  a  wider 
way,  the  tabernacle,  the  place  of  His  abode,  was  holy ; 
Zion  was  the  holy  hill ;  Jerusalem,  the  holy  city ;  Israel, 
His  holy  people ;  the  cities  of  Palestine,  His  holy  cities. 
All  sacrifices  and  gifts  to  Him  were  holy  things,  the  tithes, 
the  first-fruits,  the  shewbread,  the  sacrifices,  particularly 
the  sin-oftering  and  the  trespass-offering. 

In  that  which  was  holy  there  might  be  gradations ; 
the  outer  part  of  the  temple  was  holy,  the  inner  most 
holy.  All  flesh-offerings  were  holy,  but  the  sin-offering 
was  most  holy.  The  meaning  does  not  seem  to  be  this, 
that  these  things  being  dedicated  to  God,  this  fact  raised 
in  the  mind  a  certain  feeling  of  reverence  or  awe  for 
them,  and  then  this  secondary  quality  in  them  of  inspiring 
awe  was  called  holiness.  The  word  '  holy '  describes  the 
primary  relation  of  belonging  to  Jehovah  ;  and  things 
were  'most  holy'  which  belonged  exclusively  or  in  some 
special  way  to  Him.  The  sin-offering,  for  example,  was 
partaken  of  exclusively  by  the  priests,  His  immediate 
servants.  It  was  wholly  given  over  to  Jehovah ;  while 
the  peace-offerings  were  in  large  part  given  back  to  the 
laity,  to  be  used  by  the  people  in  their  sacrificial  feasts. 
The  idea  of  holiness  appears  in  the  terms  in  which  those 
are  described  who  are  to  be  priests ;  as  indeed  it  appears 
quite  evidently  in  the  passage  where  Israel  is  called  an 
*  holy '  nation  (Ex.  xix.  6),  which  is  parallel  on  the  one 
hand  to  a  'kingdom  of  priests,'  and  on  the  other  to  the 
word  '  private  possession,'  n^Jip.  Korah  and  his  company 
objected  to  the  exclusive  priesthood  of  Aaron,  saying,  "  Ye 
take  too  much  upon  you,  seeing  all  the  congregation  are 
holy,  every  one  of  them,  and  Jehovah  is  among  them " ; 
His   presence   makes   all   alike   holy,  i.e.  His.     To   which 


164       THE   THEOLOGY   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

Moses  answered :  "  To-morrow  will  Jehovah  show  who  are 
His,  and  who  are  holy  "  (Num.  xvi.  5).  Hence  the  priests 
are  said  to  be  holy  unto  Jehovah ;  His  special  possession. 

The  term  *  holy '  applied  to  things,  therefore,  signifies 
that  tliey  are  the  possession  of  Jehovah.  Naturally  out  of 
this  idea  others  arose  of  an  allied  kind.  That  which  is 
His,  e.g.,  is  withdrawn  from  the  region  of  common  things. 
Thus  in  the  legislation  of  Ezekiel,  a  part  of  the  holy  land, 
25,000  cubits  square,  the  portion  of  the  priests,  is  called  a 
holy  thing,  and  distinguished  from  all  around,  which  is  ^h, 
profane,  or  common — that  which  lies  open,  is  accessible. 
Hence  '  holy,'  that  which  is  peculiar  to  Jehovah  and  not 
common,  is  looked  at  as  elevated  above  the  ordinary.  And, 
in  Hke  manner,  belonging  to  Jehovah  it  is  inviolable,  and 
those  who  lay  their  hands  upon  it  desecrate  it,  and 
Jehovah's  jealousy  reacts  against  them  and  destroys  them. 
So  it  is  said  of  Israel  in  her  early  time,  in  the  beautiful 
passage  Jer.  ii.  2,  3  :  "  I  remember  of  thee  the  kindness 
of  thy  youth  .  .  .  Israel  was  a  holy  thing  of  the  Lord, 
and  the  first  -  fruits  of  His  increase,"  i.e.  His  nearest 
property;  all  that  devoured  lier  incurred  guilt. 

In  a  similar  way,  when  '  holy '  was  said  of  men, 
the  term  gathered  a  certain  amount  of  contents  into  it. 
Though  expressing  originally  merely  the  idea  of  dedication 
to  Jehovah,  or  possession  by  Him,  all  the  conceptions  of 
that  which  Jehovah  was  naturally  flowed  into  the  term, 
because  men  dedicated  to  Jehovah  must  be  fit  for  such 
a  consecration,  and  fitness  implied  that  they  must  be 
like  Jehovah  Himself — partakers  of  the  Divine  nature. 
Hence  Isaiah  (iv.  3,  4)  speaks  of  the  holy  seed  being 
the  stock  of  a  new  Israel  of  the  future ;  and  what  ideas 
he  expresses  by  '  holy  seed '  appears  from  chap.  iv.  3,  in 
which  he  describes  the  regenerated  nation  of  the  time  to 
come,  in  those  last  days  when  all  nations  shall  pour  in 
pilgrhnage  to  the  house  of  the  God  of  Jacob :  "  And  it 
shall  come  to  pass,  that  he  that  is  left  in  Zion,  and  he  that 
remaineth  in  Jerusalem,  sliall  be  called  holy,  every  one 
whose  name  is  inscribed  among  the  living  in  Jerusalem : 


*H0LY'    as   applied   to   JEHOVAH  155 

when  Jehovah  shall  have  washed  away  the  filtli  of  the 
daughters  of  Zion,  and  shall  cleanse  away  llie  liloodshed  of 
Jerusalem  from  the  midst  thereof." 

(h)  A  few  passages  may  be  cited  in  illustration  of  the 
application  of  the  term  '  holy '  to  Jehovah.  Holi/  as 
applied  to  Jehovah  is  an  expression  that  in  some  way 
describes  Him  as  God,  either  generally,  or  on  any  particular 
side  of  His  nature  the  manifestation  or  thought  of  which 
impresses  men  with  the  sense  of  His  Godhead.  Generally 
the  term  describes  Jehovah  as  God.  For  example,  in  one 
place  (Amos  vi.  8),  "  Jehovah  God  hath  sworn  by  Himself  "  ; 
in  another  (Amos  iv.  2),  "  Jehovah  God  hath  sworn  by  His 
holiness,"  the  two  phrases  having  virtually  the  same  sense. 
Again  (Hos.  xi.  9),  "  I  am  God,  and  not  man,  Kadosh  in  the 
midst  of  thee,"  where  Kadosh  is  equivalent  to  God  and 
opposed  to  man.  So  in  Isa.  vi.  3,  the  cry  of  the  seraphim, 
"  Holy,  holy,  holy  is  Jeliovah  of  hosts,"  the  term  '  holy ' 
expresses  the  same  conception  as  Adondi,  the  sovereign, 
or  melek,  the  king ;  it  expresses  the  conception  of  Deity 
in  the  highest  sense.  But  usually  more  than  the  mere  idea 
of  Godhead  is  carried  in  the  term.  That  it  also  connotes 
the  attributes  always  associated  with  Godhead,  appears  even 
in  this  passage,  where  the  vision  of  Jehovah  immediately 
suggests  to  the  prophet  the  uncleanness  of  his  lips  and 
those  of  his  people.  Still  it  was  not  any  particular  side  of 
Jehovah's  Godhead,  or  any  one  special  attribute,  that  Kadosh 
expressed ;  Jehovah  was  seen  to  be  Kadosh  when  He  mani- 
fested Himself  on  the  side  of  any  of  those  attributes  which 
constituted  Godhead. 

Thus  there  may  be  among  the  prophets  considerable 
ditlerence  in  regard  to  the  application  of  the  term  *  holy ' ; 
one  prophet,  such  as  Isaiah,  may  call  Jehovah  Kadosh, 
when  His  moral  attributes  are  manifested,  as  His  right- 
eousness ;  another,  such  as  Ezekiel,  may  consider  His 
Godhead  revealed  more  in  the  display  of  other  attributes 
which  are  not  distinctively  moral,  such  as  His  power. 
In  Isa.  V.  16  we  have  this:  "Jehovah  of  hosts  shall 
be  exalted  in  judgment,"  and  "  God,  the  Holy  One  {hah- 


156        THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

kadosh),  sliall  1)0  sauctificd  in  righteousness."  Tlie  Nipluil, 
rondevod  to  he  sanclifiecl,  means  either  to  show  one's  self 
Kadosh,  or  to  get  recognition  as  Kadosh.  Here  then 
Jehovah  shows  Himself  as  Kadosh,  or  is  recognised  as 
Kadosh  by  a  display  of  His  righteous  judgment  upon  the 
sinners  of  Israel.  An  exhibition  of  righteousness  shows 
Him  to  be  Kadosh.  In  other  two  passages  of  Isaiah 
Jehovah  is  *  sanctified '  —  recognised  or  reverenced  as 
Kadosh — by  religious  fear  or  awe :  "  Fear  ye  not  that 
which  this  people  fear,  nor  be  in  dread  thereof.  Jehovah 
of  hosts,  Him  shall  ye  sanctify ;  and  let  Him  be  your  fear, 
and  let  Him  be  your  dread"  (viii.  13);  and,  "They  shall 
sanctify  the  Kadosh  of  Jacob,  and  shall  stand  in  awe  of  the 
God  of  Israel"  (xxix.  23).  In  Num.  xx.  12  a  remark- 
able instance  of  the  general  use  of  the  term  sanctify  occurs. 
Jehovah  says  to  Moses  and  Aaron  :  "  Because  ye  believed 
not  in  Me  to  sanctify  Me  in  the  eyes  of  the  children  of 
Israel,"  i.e.  because  Moses  apparently  doubted  the  Divine 
power  to  bring  water  out  of  the  rock.  In  Lev.  x.  3,  re- 
ferring to  the  profane  act  of  Nadab  and  Abihu,  Jehovah 
says :  "  I  will  be  sanctified  (recognised  and  reverenced  as 
Kadosh)  in  them  that  come  nigh  Me,  and  before  all  the 
people  I  will  be  glorified";  being  'glorified'  is  not  syn- 
onymous with  being  *  sanctified,'  but  it  is  a  part  of  it.  So 
Ezek.  xxviii.  22:  "I  am  against  thee,  0  Zidon  ;  and  I  will  be 
glorified  in  the  midst  of  thee :  and  they  shall  know  that  I 
am  Jehovah  {i.e.  God  alone),  when  I  have  executed  judg- 
ments in  the  midst  of  her,  and  I  shall  be  sanctified  in  her  "  ; 
where  to  be  '  sanctified '  or  recognised  as  Kadosh  is  parallel 
to  "  they  shall  know  that  I  am  Jehovah," — which  in  Ezekiel 
means  the  only  true  God,  and  all  that  He  is. 

Passages  might  be  multiplied,  especially  from  Ezekiel, 
but  it  is  not  necessary.  The  words  holy,  sanctify,  and  their 
opposites,  profane  and  the  like,  are  the  terms  usually  em- 
ployed. It  is  a  remarkable  thing  that  never  in  Ezekiel, 
any  more  than  in  the  Levitical  law,  is  the  term  '  righteous  * 
applied  to  Jehovah.  Men  are  righteous,  but  Jehovah  is 
Kadosh.      This  is  particularly  remarkable  when  the  usage 


JEREMIAH    AND    EZEKIEL  157 

of  Jereniiali  is  observed.  Exco])l,  in  chaps.  1.  and  li., 
which  are  nsnally  considered  in  tlieir  present  form  later 
than  Jeremiah,  that  prophet  does  not  use  the  word  '  holy ' 
in  any  of  its  forms  in  reference  to  Jeliovah  (except  xxiii. 
9,  where  he  applies  it  to  the  words  of  Jehovah).  There 
are  two  prophets  contemporary  witli  one  another  diCCering 
totally  in  their  phraseology  in  regard  to  God — Jeremiah 
following  the  example  of  the  earlier  prophets,  and  avoiding 
the  phraseology  of  the  ritual  law,  Ezekiel  following  it. 
The  fact  shows  that  we  must  be  very  cautious  in  inferring 
from  a  writer's  usage  of  language  and  from  his  conceptions 
the  date  at  which  he  lived.  Ezekiel  knows  and  uses  all  the 
terminology  of  the  ritual  law ;  his  contemporary  Jeremiali 
avoids  it  as  much  as  prophets  two  centuries  before  him, 
such  as  Amos  or  Isaiah.  The  peculiarity  is  due  to  personal 
idiosyncrasy  and  associations,  and  is  not  a  criterion  of  date. 
And  it  is  precarious,  as  a  rule,  to  rely  much  on  the  argument 
from  silence.  The  fact  that  Jeremiah  has  no  interest  in 
the  ritual  with  its  terminology,  and  ignores  it,  while  the 
mind  of  his  contemporary  Ezekiel  is  full  of  it,  leads  us  to 
ask  whether  there  may  not  have  been  contemporary  with 
the  older  prophets,  Amos,  Isaiah,  etc.,  who  ignore  it,  a  body 
of  persons  like-minded  with  Ezekiel,  godly  men  as  well  as 
he,  who  cherished  the  same  class  of  thoughts — in  a  word, 
a  priestly  class  among  whom  the  term  'holy'  was  used 
where  among  another  class  '  righteous '  was  employed, 
among  whom  *  sin '  and  all  evil  were  conceived  of  under 
the  idea  of  uncleanness  and  ini'purity  and  such-like — 
men,  I  say,  as  godly,  and  pursuing  ends  as  holy  and  as 
truly  theocratic  as  the  prophets,  but  dominated  by  a 
different  class  of  conceptions  and  by  different  ideals. 

To  what  shall  we  ascribe  tlie  domination  of  this  class 
of  ideas,  and,  particularly,  how  shall  we  account  for  the 
drawing  of  the  sesthetic  or  ceremonial  into  the  idea  of 
holiness,  and  the  strange  conception — strange  to  us,  at  least 
— that  certain  creatures  were  obnoxious  to  the  Deity,  that 
certain  acts  perfectly  innocent  morally  incapacitated  a 
person  for  worshipping  Him  acceptably  ? 


158   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

Now,  this  is  a  large  question.  But,  in  the  first  place, 
the  place  of  iesthetic  in  religion  is  undoubtedly  ancient. 
It  pervades  antiquity,  and  is  seen  very  early  in  Israel. 
The  priest  who  gave  the  holy  bread  to  David  and  his  fol- 
lowers insisted  on  knowing  whetlier  the  young  men  were 
clean.  Among  all  ancient  peoples  the  sexual  relations, 
the  offices  of  nature,  the  giving  birth  to  children,  inferred 
uncleanness,  and  in  Israel,  at  least,  contact  with  death. 
There  was  something  in  all  these  things  which  to  decency  or 
refinement  or  taste  was  repulsive.  Further,  human  feeling 
recoils  in  many  instances  from  some  of  the  lower  creatures, 
such  as  the  reptiles,  and  those  designated  in  the  wider 
sense  vermin,  such  as  the  smaller  quadrupeds.  Men  shrink 
from  contact  with  all  these  creatures,  and  they  have  a  feel- 
ing of  defilement  in  regard  to  the  actions  just  referred  to. 
Undoubtedly  this  feeling,  which  men  shared,  was  attributed 
by  them  also  to  God. 

Again,  this  aesthetic  or  ceremonial  side  of  holiness  was 
greatly  promoted  by  the  otlier  conception  that  Jehovah 
was  located  in  a  certain  place — His  Temple.  This  created 
the  possibility  and  the  danger  that  some  of  these  things 
should  be  brought  near  Him,  or  that  men  being  in  that 
state  which  the  above  mentioned  acts  brought  them  into, 
should  come  into  His  presence.  This  aesthetic  or  cere- 
monial element  in  -  holiness  was  thus  undoubtedly  an 
ancient  element,  as  ancient  as  the  notion  of  the  existence 
of  a  place  where  Jehovah  abode.  It  was  essentially  con- 
nected with  the  idea  of  worship  rendered  to  Jehovah  in  a 
place  of  His  abode. 

Once  more,  undoubtedly,  this  idea  of  Jehovah's  being 
connected  with  a  particular  place  was  strengthened  by  the 
destruction  of  all  the  local  shrines,  and  the  confining  of 
ritual  to  Jerusalem.  There  He  was  present  in  person.  The 
destruction  also  of  the  local  shrines  destroyed  all  private 
sacrifice,  and  made  ritual  officially  religious ;  and  the  idea 
pervaded  the  minds  of  men  more  and  more  of  being  a 
congregation,  a  body  of  worshippers,  and  the  question  was 
raised  as  to  their  condition  and  fitness  to  appear  before  the 


CEREMONIAL   CLEANNESS  159 

presence  of  Jehovah.  By  all  these  things  probably  the 
gesthetic  or  ceremonial  was  drawn  more  and  more  into  the 
idea  of  holiness.  The  conception  of  ceremonial  cleanness 
was  old,  as  old  as  that  of  the  existence  of  a  place  of  worship  ; 
and  the  class  of  conceptions  would  be  cherished  among  the 
priestly  order,  and  developed  by  them ;  and  as  the  idea  of 
Israel's  being  a  State  was  lost,  and  it  appeared  merely  a 
worshipping  community,  the  conceptions  would  gain  greater 
ground.  Thus  probably  the  multiplication  of  ceremonies, 
defilements  on  the  one  hand  and  purifications  on  the 
other,  may  have  gradually  increased,  until  it  reached 
the  dimensions  which  it  has  attained  in  the  ritual 
law.^ 

But  one  may  perceive  from  all  this  that  there  was  no 
distinction  in  the  Law  between  moral  and  what  we  have 
been  accustomed  to  call  ceremonial.  The  idea  of  cere- 
monial, i.e.  rites,  such  as  washings,  etc.,  which  have  no 
meaning  in  themselves,  but  are  performed  in  order  to  ex- 
press or  suggest  moral  ideas,  has  strictly  no  existence  in 
the  Old  Testament.  The  offences  which  we  call  ceremonial 
were  not  symbolical,  they  were  real  offences  to  Jehovah, 
against  which  His  nature  reacted ;  and  the  purifications 
from  them  were  real  purifications,  and  not  merely  sym- 
bolical. That  is,  what  might  be  called  aesthetic  or  physical 
unholiness  was  held  offensive  to  the  nature  of  God  in  the 
real  sense,  in  a  sense  as  real  as  moral  offences  were  offen- 
sive to  Him ;  and  the  purifications  were  true  removals  of 
these  real  causes  of  offence.  This  aesthetic  or  physical 
holiness  is  an  ancient  idea.  But  the  prophets  made  little 
of  it,  insisting  on  moral  hohness.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
idea  receives  a  great  extension  in  the  Law.  And  hence  at 
the  return  from  Captivity,  when  the  people  were  no  more 
a  nation  but  a  worshipping  community,  serving  God  who 
abode  in  a  house  in  the  midst  of  them,  this  idea  of  *  holi- 
ness '  was  the  fundamental  idea,  both  of  God  wlio  was 
worshipped  and  of  men  who  worshipped  Him,  and  tlie  con- 

^  Dill  not  purifications  take  place  before  sacrifice,  even  at  the  liigli  places  ? 
No  doubt. 


160        THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

ception  lies  at  tlie  basis  of  the  now  constitutiou  after  tlie 
KestoratioD. 

In  this  connection  we  may  advert  also  to  tlie  point  of 
view  from  which  the  'people  are  regarded.  In  the  extra- 
ritual  books  atonement  is  very  mucli  equivalent  to  forgive- 
ness of  sin, — after  Jehovah's  exhibition  of  His  righteousness 
by  the  chastisements  inflicted  on  the  people  who  sin,  and 
on  their  acknowledging  their  sin  and  repenting.  The  con- 
ception of  God  is  that  of  a  moral  Mind  who  regards  sin  as 
morally  wrong,  deserving  of  punishment,  and  who  as  a 
moral  Kuler  inflicts  punishment ;  though  His  long-suffering 
and  mercy  are  ever  ready  to  forgive. 

The  same  conception  of  Jehovah  appears  in  Isa.  liii. ; 
but  there  the  chastisement  of  sin  falls  upon  another  than 
those  whose  sin  is  forgiven.  He  bears  the  chastisement  of 
the  sins  of  the  people,  and  they  are  forgiven  and  restored. 
But  though  this  be  the  case,  God  continues  to  be  con- 
sidered the  author  of  salvation.  This  laying  of  the  sins  of 
the  people  upon  another  was  His  act :  "  It  pleased  the 
Lord  to  bruise  Him,"  with  the  view  that  if  He  made  an 
offering  for  sin,  the  work  of  the  Lord  should  prosper  by 
Him.  This  is  the  view  in  the  Law  and  Ezekiel.  It  re- 
appears in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Perhaps  this  view 
of  God  and  of  atonement  is  that  expressed  in  St.  Paul's 
Epistles.  J^ 

There  is,  however,  another  view  of  God  in  the  Old 
Testament.  He  is  not  regarded  so  much  in  the  character 
of  a  righteous  ruler  as  in  that  of  a  sensitive  being  or  nature 
which  reacts  against  sin.  Sin,  however,  is  conceived  as 
uncleanness.  In  this  view  Jehovah  is  called  holy,  and 
atonement  is  removal  from  men  of  all  uncleanness  disturb- 
ing to  Jehovah's  nature. 

3.   The  Natural  AttribiUes, 

When  the  prophets  speak  of  Jehovah  as  God  alone, 
they  also  state  in  many  ways  what  His  attributes  are. 
Not  that  they   ever  speak   of   the   attril)utes   of   Jehovah 


THE  ATTKir.UTKS  IN  LATER  PROPHECY     161 

jil)slractly  or  as  separated  from  ITiniself.  They  speak  of 
a  great,  living  person  who  shows  all  tlie  attributes  of 
moral  ]>eing.  Jehovali,  wlio  is  God  alone,  is  a  transcendent 
moral  person.  He  is  such  a  person  as  we  are  ourselves; 
His  characteristics  do  uot  dilfer  from  ours,  except  tliat 
they  exceed  ours.  To  say  that  Jehovali  is  a  transcendent 
moral  person,  is  to  express  the  whole  doctrine  of  God ;  for 
that  which  is  moral  includes  mercy  and  love  and  com- 
passion and  goodness,  with  all  that  these  lead  to,  not  less 
than  rectitude  and  justice. 

What  needs  to  be  said  on  this  subject  may  be  best  said 
by  looking  specially  at  the  representations  given  in  Second 
Isaiah.  In  the  first  nine  chapters  of  the  propliecy,  in 
which  the  prophet,  in  order  to  sustain  the  faith  of  Israel 
and  the  hope  of  deliverance,  enlarges  upon  the  antithesis 
between  Jehovah  and  the  idols,  it  is  mainly  what  have 
been  called  the  natural  attributes  of  Jehovah  that  he 
dwells  upon,  such  as  His  power,  His  foresight  and  omni- 
science, the  unsearchableness  of  His  undei^standing  or  mind, 
and  the  like.  But  in  the  succeeding  chapters,  where  not  the 
opposition  between  Jehovah  and  the  idols  and  idol-worship- 
ping nations  is  dwelt  upon,  but  the  relations  of  Jehovah 
to  His  people  Israel,  it  is  naturally  chiefly  the  redemptive 
attributes  of  Jehovah  that  become  prominent,  His  love,  as 
in  calling  the  people  and  redeeming  them  of  old ;  His 
memories  of  Abraham  His  friend ;  His  comjMssion  when  He 
Ijeholds  the  miseries  of  the  people,  and  remembers  former 
times  before  they  were  cast  off',  as  a  wife  of  youth,  who 
had  been  rejected,  is  remembered ;  or  His  7nerci/  in 
restraining  His  anger  in  pity  of  their  frailty :  "  He  will 
not  be  always  wroth ;  for  the  spirits  would  fail  before 
Him,  and  the  souls  which  He  has  made  " ;  or  the  freedom 
of  His  grace  in  blotting  out  their  sins  for  His  name's 
sake :  "  I  am  He  that  blotteth  out  thy  transgressions 
for  Mine  own  sake,  and  I  will  not  remember  thy  sins  " 
(xliii.  25). 

In  these  chapters,  especially  from  the  forty-ninth  on- 
wards, the  prophet  descends  to  a  depth  of  feeling,  in  two 
II 


162   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

directions,  to  wliich  no  otlier  prophet  readies — first,  in  his 
feehng  of  the  love  of  Jehovah  for  His  people.  He  becomes, 
as  we  miglit  say,  immersed  in  this  love,  placing  himself  in 
the  very  Divine  mind  itself,  and  expressing  all  its  emotions, 
its  tender  memories  of  former  union,  its  regrets  over  the  too 
great  severity  of  the  chastisement  to  whicli  the  people  had 
been  subjected.  She  has  "  received  of  the  Lord's  liand 
doul)le  for  all  her  sin  "  (xl.  2) ;  "  In  an  overflow  of  anger  I 
hid  My  face  from  tliee  "  (liv.  8).  He  tells  of  returning  love, 
and  the  importunity  with  which  it  desires  to  retrieve  the 
past :  "  Comfort  ye,  comfort  ye  My  people :  speak  to  the 
heart  of  Jerusalem"  (xl.  1,  2);  and  makes  the  announcement 
of  the  unchangeableness  of  His  love  for  the  time  to  come : 
"  This  is  the  waters  of  Noah  unto  Me :  as  I  have  sworn 
that  the  waters  of  Noah  shall  no  more  overwhelm  the 
earth,  so  have  I  sworn  that  I  will  no  more  be  angry  with 
thee  "  (liv.  9). 

And  in  another  direction  the  depth  of  the  prophet's 
feeling  is  without  parallel — his  sense  of  the  people's  sin. 
It  is  no  doubt  the  unexampled  sufferings  of  the  people, 
especially  the  godly  among  them,  that  mainly  suggested  to 
him  the  depth  of  their  sin.  It  is  usually  held  that  it  was 
the  Law  that  gave  Israel  its  deep  sense  of  sin.  The  Law 
was,  no  doubt,  fitted  to  suggest  to  men  the  exceeding  breadth 
of  God's  commandments,  and  the  inability  of  man  to  fulfil 
them,  and  thus  to  lead  them  to  feel  that  they  must  cast 
themselves  upon  the  grace  of  God.  Yet,  historically,  it 
is  probable  that  this  educational  influence  of  the  Law  began 
later  than  the  prophetic  age.  At  whatever  time  the  Law, 
as  we  understand  it,  was  actually  given,  it  certainly  did 
not  draw  the  people's  life  as  a  whole  under  its  control  till 
after  the  restoration  from  the  Exile.  So  that  as  a  matter 
of  history  the  sense  of  sin  was  impressed  upon  the  people 
by  their  experiences.  Their  sufferings  were  Jehovah's  chas- 
tisement of  them,  they  were  due  to  His  anger.  And  they 
measured  His  anger  by  the  terribleness  of  their  calamities ; 
and  their  sin  they  estimated  according  to  the  terribleness 
of  His  anger.      It  is  in  the  sections  where  the  sufferings  of 


THE   NATURAL   ATTRIBUTES  163 

the  Servant  are  touclied  upon  that  the  prophet's  sense  of 
the  people's  sin  most  clearly  appears. 

But  it  is  proper  to  refer  to  some  of  those  attributes  of 
Jehovah  usually  called  natural.  These  may  be  dealt  with 
very  briefly.  First,  His  power.  In  Isa.  xl.  the  prophet, 
in  order  to  comfort  the  people  and  assure  them  of  Jeliovah's 
ability  to  redeem  them  out  of  the  hand  of  their  enemies, 
presents  before  them  His  might  as  Creator — His  immeasur- 
able power.  He  measured  in  the  hollow  of  His  hand  the 
oceans.  The  nations  to  Him  are  as  a  '  drop  of  a  bucket,' 
and  as  '  the  small  dust  upon  the  balance ' — inappreciable. 
So  great  is  He  that  to  make  a  sacrifice  to  Him  that  would 
be  appreciable  '  Lebanon  would  not  suffice '  for  the  wood, 
nor  all  the  beasts  there  for  an  offering.  All  nations  are 
from  His  point  of  view  nothing ;  in  a  word,  His  greatness 
is  such  that  no  comparison  can  be  instituted  between  Him 
and  aught  else ;  He  and  the  universe  are  incommensurable. 
As  an  instance  of  His  power  in  nature  good  for  all,  the 
prophet  points  to  the  motions  of  the  starry  heavens : 
"  Who  created  these,  bringing  out  their  host  by  number  ? 
He  calls  every  one  by  name,  for  the  greatness  of  His  power 
not  one  faileth."  He  is  the  Lord  of  hosts,  calling  out  His 
armies  on  their  nightly  parade,  and  not  one  fails  to  answer 
His  call.  This  is  physical  power.  But  His  mental  power 
is  equally  immeasurable :  "  Who  regulated  or  directed  His 
mind  in  creating  ? "  the  prophet  asks,  "  who  was  His 
coimsellor  ? "  The  infinite  masses  of  the  universe  are 
there  by  His  wisdom  in  their  just  proportions :  "  He 
weighed  the  mountains  in  His  scales."  He  is  an  everlast- 
ing God ;  the  sources  of  His  life  and  power  well  up 
eternally  fresh ;  He  fainteth  not,  neither  is  weary ;  there 
is  no  searching  into  His  understanding. 

And  it  is  not  only  that  He  possesses  this  power ;  He 
may  be  observed  continually  wielding  it  in  history.  He 
sits  upon  the  circle  of  the  heavens  overarching  the  earth, 
and  the  "  inliabitants  thereof  are  as  giasshop] »ors  "  ;  and  He 
"  bringeth  princes  to  nought,"  withering  up,  as  the  hot  wind 
of  the  desert  does  the  vegetation,  the  most  powerful  com- 


164   THE  THEOLOOY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

biiiations  of  men  iu  armies  and  in  empires,  and  scattering 
them  as  dust  abroad ;  dissolving  kingdoms  and  States,  and 
causing:  their  elements  to  enter  into  new  combinations 
(xl.  22).  And  not  only  in  the  past  does  He  so  act,  but  in 
the  present  He  raises  up  Cyrus  from  the  East,  making  him 
come  upon  rulers  as  upon  mortar,  and  as  the  potter  treadeth 
clay  (xli.  25);  subduing  nations  before  Him,  breaking  in 
pieces  the  doors  of  brass,  and  cutting  asunder  the  bars  of 
iron  (xlv.  1,2).  And  this  is  no  mere  sporadic  exhibition  of 
power,  no  inbreak  merely  into  history  ;  for  He  dominates  all 
history  and  the  life  of  mankind  upon  the  earth ;  He  calleth 
the  generations  from  the  beginning,  each  to  come  upon  the 
stage  of  life,  and  when  its  part  is  played  to  depart  (xli.  4). 
His  sovereignty  over  nature  and  men  and  the  nations  is 
absolute  and  imiversal,  and  He  makes  all  serve  His  ends. 
Over  nature  His  sovereignty  is  beautifully  expressed  in  the 
passage  where,  making  all  things  to  help  the  restoration  of 
His  people,  He  says :  "  I  will  make  all  My  mountains  a 
way,  and  all  My  highways  shall  be  paved"  (xlix.  11);  "I 
will  say  to  the  north,  Give  up ;  and  to  the  south,  Keep  not 
back :  bring  My  sons  from  far,  and  My  daughters  from  the 
ends  of  the  earth  "  (xHii.  6).  His  sovereignty  over  men, 
over  His  people,  in  like  manner  is  expressed  in  the  passage  : 
"  Woe  to  him  that  strive th  with  his  Maker  !  Shall  the  clay 
say  to  him  that  fashioneth  it.  What  makest  thou  ?  or  thy 
work,  He  hath  no  hands  ? "  (xlv.  9).  And  in  chap.  Iv.  8  : 
"  My  thoughts  are  not  as  your  thoughts."  And  not  only 
over  men  or  His  people,  but  over  the  nations :  "  I  will 
give  Egypt  for  thy  ransom,  Ethiopia  and  Sheba  instead 
of  thee  "  (xliii.  3). 

But  the  further  multiplication  of  passages  is  unneces- 
sary. There  are  three  names  used  by  the  prophet  under 
whicli  these  various  conceptions  of  Jehovah  might  all  be 
summed  up.  These  are  :  {a)  KadosJi,  C'ini^,  the  '  Holy  One,' 
as  we  might  say,  the  transcendent  (h)  nij^nv  '\  Jehovah  of 
Hosts,  the  omnipotent.  And  (c)  I^inxi  pC^K"},  the  first  and 
the  last. 

The  expression  '  Holy  One  of  Israel '  is  common  to  these 


*THE    FIRST    AND    THE    LAST '  165 

chapters  with  tlic  lirst  part  of  Isaiah ;  iu  tlicso  chapt(3rs, 
liowever,  the  simple  ^'^'^P  is  used  even  without  the  article 
as  a  proper  name :  "  To  whom  then  will  ye  liken  Me  ? 
saith  Kadosli"  (xl.  25).  The  word  is  derived  from  a  root 
np  meaning  to  cut,  or  cut  off;  hence  the  meaning  of  t^'Hi^, 
as  we  have  seen,  is  possibly  separate,  removed.  As  applied 
to  Jehovah  it  comes  nearest  our  term  transcendent.  It 
signifies  Jehovah  as  removed  from  the  sphere  of  the  human 
or  earthly.  Naturally,  though  this  removal  might  first  of 
all  apply,  so  to  speak,  to  Jeliovah  in  His  physical  nature, 
so  far  as  usage  goes,  it  is  employed  mainly  of  His  moral 
nature. 

But  of  the  first  of  these  three  names  enough  has  been 
said  already.  The  second,  the  phrase  '  Jehovah  of  hosts,' 
or  'Jehovah,  God  of  hosts,'  was  probably  first  used  in 
connection  with  the  armies  of  Israel.  But  later,  the  hosts 
were  understood  of  the  stars ;  and  the  commanding  of 
these,  and  causing  them  to  perform  their  regular  movements, 
was  held  the  highest  conceivable  exercise  of  power.  Hence 
*  Jehovah  of  hosts '  is  nearly  our  Alinighty  or  omnipotent, 
as  the  Septuagint  in  some  parts  renders  it  iravTOKpdrcop. 

The  third  expression,  'the  first  and  the  last'  (Isa.  xliv.  6), 
is  a  surprising  generalisation  for  a  comparatively  early  time. 
It  is  not  a  mere  statement  that  Jehovah  was  from  the 
beginning  and  will  be  at  the  end.  It  is  a  name  indicating 
His  relation  to  history  and  the  life  of  men.  He  initiates 
it,  and  He  winds  it  up.  And  He  is  present  in  all  its 
movements  :  "  Since  it  was,  there  am  I  "  (xlviii.  16).  Even 
the  last  book  of  the  New  Testament  has  nothincj  loftier  to 
say  of  Jehovah  than  that  He  is  '  the  first  and  the  last ' : 
"  I  am  the  Alpha  and  the  Omega,  the  first  and  the  last, 
saith  the  Lord,  the  Almighty  "  (Rev.  i.  8). 

The  propliet's  doctrine  of  Jehovah  on  this  side  of  His 
Being  is  very  lofty  and  developed,  more  so  tlian  is  seen  in 
any  other  l)ook  except  Jol) ;  and  most  writers  are  inclined 
to  conclude  from  tliis  liighly  advanced  doctrine  of  God  tliat 
the  prophecies  cannot  be  earlier  tlian  the  time  of  the  Exile. 
The  unity  of  God  and  the  universality  of  His  power  and 


166        THE   THEOLOGY    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

rule  are  inferred  from  His  being  Creator :  "  Thus  saith  the 
Lord,  who  created  the  heavens,  He  is  God"  (xlv.  18).  It 
is  to  be  remarked,  however,  that  the  prophet's  interests 
were  never  abstract  or  merely  theoretical.  All  his  ex- 
hibitions of  the  unity  or  power  or  forcmjlit  of  Jehovah 
have  a  practical  end  in  view,  namely,  to  comfort  the 
people  of  God  amidst  their  afflictions,  to  sustain  their 
faith  and  their  hopes,  and  to  awaken  them  to  those 
efforts  on  their  own  part,  that  forsaking  of  their  sin  and 
their  own  thoughts,  which  are  needful  to  secure  their 
salvation.  "  Why,  when  I  am  come,  is  there  no  man  ? 
when  I  call,  is  there  none  that  answereth  ?  Is  My  arm 
shortened,  that  it  cannot  save  ?  Behold,  by  My  rebuke 
I  dry  up  the  sea,  I  cover  the  heavens  with  blackness" 
(1.  2).  Thus  all  the  teaching  of  the  prophet  regarding 
Jehovah  and  regarding  the  people  is  strictly  religious. 
When  he  insists  on  the  unity  of  Jehovah,  it  is  not  the 
unity  as  a  mere  abstract  truth  about  God,  but  as  the  very 
basis  and  condition  of  salvation  for  Israel  and  all  men. 
And  the  same  is  true  in  regard  to  all  the  attributes  of 
Jehovah  which  he  touches  upon,  and  all  the  operations 
which  he  represents  Him  as  performing.  His  whole 
interest  is  summed  up  in  such  words  as  these  which  the 
Lord  speaks  through  him  :  "  There  is  no  God  besides  Me, 
no  Saviour."     To  mention  one  or  two  particulars : 

(1)  Even  creation  is  a  moral  work,  or  has  a  moral 
purpose.  In  it  Jehovah  contemplated  the  peace  and  well- 
being  of  men.  "Thus  saith  the  Lord  who  created  the 
heavens ;  He  is  God,  who  formed  the  earth :  He  created  it 
not  a  chaos.  He  formed  it  to  be  inhabited  "  (xlv.  1 8).  The 
world  is  a  moral  constitution.  The  devastations  introduced 
by  wars,  the  miseries  of  men  due  to  idolatry,  with  its  pride 
and  cruelty  and  inhumanity,  are  perversions  of  His  primary 
conception  in  creation.  This  idea  of  the  universality  of 
Jehovah's  sovereignty — which  the  prophet  expresses  so 
often  by  calling  Him  Creator — compels  him  to  take  into 
account  not  only  Israel,  but  all  mankind  in  his  view. 
Jehovah,  God  alone,  is  God  of  all  men.     Hence  He  is  the 


Jehovah's  universal  sovereignty         167 

Saviour  not  of  Israel  only,  but  of  all  iiieii.  Earlier  prophets, 
such  as  Isaiah  in  his  second  chapter,  in  tlio  prophecy  of  the 
*  mountain  of  the  Lord,'  to  which  all  nations  sliall  <^o  up  that 
Jehovah  may  teach  them  of  His  ways,  and  that  they  may 
walk  in  His  paths,  already  teach  that  the  Gentiles  shall  be 
partakers  with  Israel  of  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God. 
But  the  present  prophet  has  a  much  securer  hold  of  tlie 
truth,  or  at  least  expresses  it  much  more  formally:  "  The 
Servant  of  the  Lord  shall  bring  forth  right  to  the  nations ; 
they  shall  wait  on  his  instruction  "  (xlii.  1—4) ;  "  He  shall 
be  the  light  of  the  Gentiles"  (xlii.  9,  xhx.  9);  "The 
nations  shall  come  to  Israel's  light,  and  kings  to  the 
brightness  of  her  rising"  (Ix.  1);  "Jehovah's  arms  shall 
rule  the  nations  "  (li.  5). 

(2)  As  in  creation  Jehovah  contemplated  men's  good 
and  salvation,  so  all  His  operations,  all  the  exhibitions  of 
His  power  and  foresight,  have  the  same  end  in  view.  All 
His  operations  on  nature,  for  instance,  when  He  trans- 
figures it  and  makes  the  desert  pools  of  water,  are  for  the 
sake  of  His  people :  "  The  poor  and  needy  are  seeking 
water,  and  there  is  none,  and  their  tongue  faileth  for  thirst ; 
I  will  open  rivers  on  the  bare  heights,  I  will  make  the 
wilderness  a  pool  of  water"  (xli.  17,  18)  ;  "Behold,  I  will 
do  a  new  thing,  I  will  give  waters  in  the  wilderness,  and 
rivers  in  the  desert,  to  give  drink  to  My  people.  Mine 
elect  "  (xliii.  20).  And  that  all  things  form  a  unity,  and 
that  it  is  in  salvation  that  their  unity  and  their  good  are 
realised,  appears  from  the  jubilations  which  the  prophet 
puts  into  the  mouth  of  universal  creation,  men  and  nature, 
when  he  refers  to  the  salvation  of  God.  Thus,  when 
Jehovah  announces  that  He  will  not  give  His  glory  to 
another,  nor  His  praise  to  graven  images,  but  that  His 
Servant  shall  be  the  hght  of  the  Gentiles,  the  prophet  makes 
all  mankind  break  into  song  over  the  announcement :  "  Sing 
unto  the  Lord  a  new  song,  and  His  praise  from  the  ends 
of  the  earth,  ye  that  go  down  into  the  sea ;  the  isles,  and 
the  inhabitants  thereof.  Let  the  wilderness  and  the  cities 
thereof  lift  up  their  voice  .  .  .  let  them  shout  from  the 


168       THE  THEOLOGY   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

top  of  the  iiioimtains "  (xlii.  10).  And  so  all  nature 
is  to  biiist  into  singing  over  tlic  redemption  of  Israel, 
because  that  is  the  first  step  towards  the  evangelising  of 
the  world :  "  Sing,  0  ye  heavens,  for  the  Lord  hath  done 
it ;  shout,  ye  lower  parts  of  the  earth  .  .  .  for  the  Lord 
hath  redeemed  Jacob,  and  will  glorify  Himself  in  Israel " 
(xliv.  23  ;  of.  xlv.  8,  xlix.  13). 

(3)  And  it  is  not  only  Jehovah's  operations  on  nature 
which  have  salvation  in  view,  but  also  all  His  operations 
on  the  stage  of  history ;  such,  for  example,  as  His  raising 
up  of  Cyrus.  This  great  act  of  providential  history  con- 
templates the  widest  scope.  It  has,  no  doubt,  narrower 
objects  in  view,  but  even  these  narrower  purposes  look 
towards  a  universal  one.  Jehovah  raises  up  Cyrus,  first, 
that  Cyrus  may  know  Him:  "  That  thou  may  est  know  that 
I  am  the  Lord  " ;  secondly,  that  His  servant  Jacob  may  be 
set  free :  "  For  My  servant  Jacob's  sake,  and  Israel  My 
chosen,  I  have  called  thee  by  thy  name "  ;  but,  thirdly, 
these  two  are  but  steps  in  the  direction  of  the  universal 
object  in  view :  "  That  men  may  know  from  the  rising  of 
the  sun,  and  from  its  going  down,  that  there  is  none  besides 
Me.  I  am  the  Lord,  and  there  is  none  else  "  (xlv.  1—7). 
And  the  same  idea  is  expressed  in  the  name  '  First  and 
Last'  given  to  Jehovah.  He  has  a  purpose  from  the 
beginning,  which  He  brings  to  completion  ;  and  this  is  none 
other  than  that  they  may  "  look  unto  Him  and  be  saved, 
all  the  ends  of  the  earth  "  (xlv.  22).  And  the  same  is  the 
meaning  when  it  is  said  so  often  that  Jehovah  is  perform- 
ing some  great  act  in  '  righteousness,'  as  when  He  says  of 
Cyrus:  "  I  have  raised  him  up  in  righteousness"  (xlv.  13). 

(4)  And  corresponding  to  this  exclusively  religious  con- 
ception of  Jehovah,  all  whose  attributes  and  operations  are 
conceived  as  working  to  one  end,  is  the  prophet's  conception 
of  the  people  Israel.  Though  he  still  holds  fast  to  the 
idea  of  the  people  or  nation,  as  all  the  prophets  operate 
with  nations,  the  religious  unit  being  to  them  the  people, 
not  the  individual ; — though  he  still  retains  this  conception, 
his  idea  of  Israel  and  its  meaning  is  a  purely  religious  one. 


REDEMPTIVE    ATTRIBUTES  1G9 

This  he  expresses  by  calling  Israel  the  Servant  of  tlw  Lord. 
All  other  conceptions  of  the  people  have  been  dropped,  and 
its  sole  significance  is  as  a  religious  unity,  serving  the  Lord 
as  His  people,  and  in  a  public  mission  to  the  world  on  His 
behalf.  Though  Israel  remains  a  people,  the  prophet's 
conception  of  it  is  that  of  a  Church.  And  that  which 
makes  Israel  the  '  Servant  of  the  Lord '  is  that  He  has  put 
His  word  into  its  mouth ;  Israel  is  the  prophet  of  the 
world.  In  earlier  writings  the  antithesis  was  between  the 
individual  prophet  and  the  people  of  Israel.  The  individual 
prophet  was  the  servant  of  the  Lord  sent  to  the  people  of 
Israel.  Now  the  antithesis  is  a  wider  one.  The  universal- 
ism  of  the  prophet's  conception  of  Jehovah  compels  him  to 
formulate  Jehovah's  relations  to  all  nations,  and  he  expresses 
his  conception  of  this  by  saying  that  Israel  is  the  Servant 
of  the  Lord,  His  messenger  and  prophet  to  mankind.  Israel 
is  the  Lord's  Servant,  because  Israel  is  the  word  of  the  Lord 
incarnate ;  and  the  greatness  of  the  scope  which  Jehovah 
had  in  view  in  putting  His  word  into  Israel's  mouth  is 
expressed  in  the  words  :  "  I  have  put  My  words  in  thy 
mouth,  that  I  may  plant  the  heavens  and  lay  the  founda- 
tions of  the  earth  {i.e.  the  new  heavens  and  the  new  earth), 
and  say  unto  Ziou,  Thou  art  My  people"  (li.  16).  The 
prophet's  redemptive  or  religious  conception  of  Israel 
exhausts  Israel.  This  appears  in  the  remarkable  passage 
in  chap.  Ixi.,  where  Israel's  relation  to  the  nations  in  the 
new  world  is  described :  "  Strangers  shall  stand  and  feed 
your  flocks,  and  aliens  shall  be  your  plowmen  and  vine- 
dressers. But  ye  shall  be  named  the  priests  of  the  Lord ; 
men  shall  call  you  the  ministers  of  our  God''  (Ixi.  5). 


4.   The  Redemptive  Attributes. 

These  general  remarks  lead  us  to  refer  more  parti- 
cularly to  those  of  Jehovah's  attributes  that  are  usually 
^iilled  redemj^ive.  It  is  unnecessary  to  dwell  on  these: 
the  mention  of  one  or  two  things  will  sullice.  There  is  one 
preliminary  point,  however,  on  which  a  remark  may  be  made. 


170   THE  THEOLOGY  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

The  prophet's  statements  are  concrete  and  not  general 
He  speaks  of  Jehovah  as  Kedeemer  mainly  in  relation  to 
Israel.  Israel  was  then  His  people,  and  no  other  was.  His 
redemptive  attributes  therefore  are  manifested  in  His 
relation  to  Israel.  To  interpret  the  prophet  rightly  this 
must  always  be  kept  in  mind.  Yet  now  when  the  Church 
or  people  of  God  has  a  wider  sense,  and  belongs  to  all 
mankind,  we  are,  no  doubt,  entitled  to  apply  to  this 
universal  Church  that  which  this  prophet  says  of  Israel, 
the  Church  in  his  day.  Though  he  regards  Jehovah's 
purpose  of  salvation  as  universal,  embracing  the  nations, 
he  does  not  represent  Jehovah  as  loving  the  nations,  or 
choosing  them,  or  redeeming  them.  The  Lord  does  not 
use  those  terms  regarding  them  which  He  uses  regarding 
Israel.  Jehovah  has  compassion  on  their  miseries ;  He 
sees  that  the  flame  of  life  burns  low  in  them,  and  His 
Servant  in  bringing  forth  right  to  them  will  deal  gently 
with  them,  and  quicken  and  heal  their  decaying  strength : 
"  The  bruised  reed  He  will  not  break,  and  the  dimly 
burning  flame  He  will  not  quench  "  (xlii.  3). 

(a)  First,  then,  Jehovah  loved  Israel.  This  is  not  a 
common  expression  ;  it  occurs,  however,  several  times,  as  in 
xliii.  4 :  "  Since  thou  hast  been  precious  in  My  sight  .  .  . 
and  I  have  loved  thee."  And  Abraham  is  called  the  friend 
or  lover  of  God  (xh.  8).  The  word  nns  is  not  much  used  by 
the  prophets  of  Jehovah's  mind  towards  His  people.  But 
there  is  another  word,  namely,  non,  which  we  render  by 
*  loving-kindness.'  This  is  oftener  employed,  as,  e.g.,  in  the 
beautiful  passage :  "  I  will  make  mention  of  the  loving- 
kindness  of  the  Lord,  and  the  great  goodness  which  He 
bestowed  on  the  house  of  Israel,  according  to  His  mercies 
and  according  to  the  multitude  of  His  loving-kindnesses " 
(Ixiii.  7).  And  this  word  really  expresses  the  idea  of  love. 
Again :  "  In  an  overflow  of  wrath  I  hid  My  face  from  thee 
for  a  moment,  but  with  everlasting  love  will  I  have  mercy 
upon  thee"  (liv.  8).  This  love  of  Jehovah  to  Israel  is 
entirely  inexplicable.  It  was  certainly  not  due  to  any 
loveliness  on  Israel's  part,  for  Israel  has  been  a  "  tnjis- 


LOVE   AND   ELECTION  171 

gressor  from  the  womb "  (xlviii.  8),  and  her  "  first  father 
sinned  against  the  Lord"  (xliii.  27).  Tlic  prophet  niiglit 
seem  to  give  an  explanation  when  Jehovali  addresses  Israel 
as  "the  seed  of  Abraham  my  friend"  (xli.  8).  Israel  is 
"  beloved  for  the  father's  sake."  But  this  only  tlirusts  the 
difficulty  a  step  back,  for  His  love  of  Abraham  himself 
cannot  be  explained :  "  Look  unto  Abraham  your  father 
...  for  when  he  was  but  one  I  called  him,  and  blessed 
him,  and  made  him  many "  (li.  2).  Jehovah's  love  is 
free,  and  we  cannot  explain  it.  We  can  see,  indeed,  why 
He  should  love  some  one  people,  and  enter  into  relations 
of  redemption  with  them,  and  deposit  His  grace  and  truth 
among  them  ;  but  we  cannot  see  why  one  and  not  another. 
It  helps  us,  however,  somewhat  if  we  perceive  that  His 
choice  of  one  was  only  temporary,  and  for  the  purpose  of 
extending  His  grace  unto  all.  And  we  are  assured  that 
His  love  is  not  arbitrary,  nor  a  mere  uncalculating  passion  ; 
but,  seeing  it  is  said  that  God  is  love,  His  love  is  the 
highest  expression  of  His  ethical  being,  the  synthesis  and 
focus  of  all  His  moral  attributes. 

(h)  He  cJiose  or  elected  Israel.  It  is  difficult  to  say 
whether  this  choice  follows  God's  love,  or  is  contempor- 
aneous with  it,  or  is  but  another  way  of  expressing  it. 
The  cJioice  or  election  of  Israel  is  one  of  the  most  common 
thoughts  of  the  prophet :  "  But  thou,  Israel,  My  servant, 
Jacob  whom  I  have  chosen  "  (xli.  8),  and  a  multitude  of 
other  places.  The  familiarity  of  the  idea  to  this  prophet 
is  remarkable  when  the  other  fact  is  taken  into  account 
that  the  idea  finds  expression  in  no  ancient  prophet.  It 
occurs  in  a  single  passage  of  Jeremiah  (xxxiii.  24),  and 
also  once  in  Ezekiel  (xx.  5),  and  in  some  passages  in 
Deuteronomy.  Otherwise,  it  occurs  only  in  late  psalms, 
such  as  Ps.  cv.  and  cvi.  The  reason  why  this  prophet 
insists  upon  Israel's  election  so  much  is  easily  perceived. 
It  is  part  of  the  '  comfort '  which  he  is  charged  to  address 
to  the  people.  Israel  seemed  dissolving  away  under  the 
wearing  forces  of  the  time.  It  was  dispersed  among  all 
peoples,  itself   no  more  a  people.      In  its  despondency  it 


172   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

could  only  complain :  "  Jehovah  hath  forsaken  me,  and  the 
Lord  hath  forgotten  me."  To  wliich  Jeliovali  answers : 
"  Can  a  woman  forget  her  sucking  child  ?  .  .  .  I  have 
graven  thee  upon  the  palms  of  My  hands ;  I  have  chosen 
thee,  and  not  cast  thee  off"  (xlix.  15,  IG). 

(c)  This  choice  realises  itself  in  calling,  or,  as  it  is 
otherwise  expressed,  in  creation  or  redemption.  "  I  called 
thee  from  the  ends  of  the  earth," — which  probably  refers 
to  Egypt,  as  the  prophet,  in  all  probability,  wrote'  in 
Babylon  (xli.  8,  9).  And  to  this  same  event,  namely,  the 
Exodus,  the  terms  create  and  redeem  usually  refer.  Jeliovah 
is  called  the  Creator  of  Israel,  because  He  brought  Israel 
into  existence  as  a  people  of  the  Exodus ;  and  for  the  same 
reason  He  is  called  the  Ecdeenier  of  IsraeL  No  doubt  the 
term  '  Eedeemer '  is  more  general.  It  expresses  a  constant 
relation  which  Jehovah  bears  to  His  people — a  relation 
illustrated  in  the  Exodus,  and  to  be  again  illustrated  in 
the  deliverance  from  Babylon :  "  Say  ye,  The  Lord  hath 
redeemed  His  servant  Jacob"  (xlviii.  20). 

{d)  A  characteristic  of  this  love  of  Jehovah  to  His 
people  is  its  michangeableness :  "  Can  a  woman  forget  .  .  . 
the  son  of  her  womb  ?  Yea,  they  may  forget,  yet  I  will  not 
forget  thee"  (xlix.  15);  and  many  similar  passages.  The 
flow  of  this  love  may  be  interrupted  for  a  small  moment  by 
an  access  of  anger ;  yet  it  but  returns  again  to  its  channel 
to  run  in  an  everlasting  current :  "  For  a  small  moment 
have  I  hid  My  face  from  thee ;  but  with  everlasting  love 
will  I  have  mercy  upon  thee"  (liv.  8).  Indeed,  the  inter- 
ruption was  but  apparent.  There  was  no  real  separation 
between  the  Lord  and  His  people  :  "  Where  is  your  mother's 
bill  of  divorcement,  with  which  I  sent  her  away  ? "  (1.  1). 

(e)  There  is  another  affection  of  Jehovah  towards  His 
people  which  is  but  a  complexion  or  aspect  of  His  love 
— His  compassion.  This  is  love  modified  by  some  other 
element,  chiefly  the  wretchedness  of  those  loved.  Thus 
in  the  beautiful  passage,  "  In  all  their  afliiction  He  was 
afflicted,  and  the  angel  of  His  presence  saved  them :  in 
His  love  and  in  His  pity  He  redeemed  them ;  and  He  bare 


GODS   GRACE  173 

them,  and  carried  them  all  the  days  of  old"  (Ixiii.  0);  and 
in  the  similar  passage  cliap.  xlvi.  3  :  "  Hearken    inito  me, 

0  house  of  Jacob  .  .  .  which  have  been  carried  from  the 
womb :  and  even  to  old  age  I  am  He ;  and  even  to  hoar 
hairs  will  I  carry  you."  And  His  anger  is  kindled 
against  Babylon  for  its  severe  treatment  of  His  people : 
"  I  was  wroth  with  My  people,  and  gave  them  into  thine 
hand  .  .  .  thou  didst  show  them  no  mercy ;  upon  the 
aged  hast  thou  very  heavily  laid  thy  yoke  .  .  .  therefore, 
these  two  things  shall  come  upon  thee  in  one  day :  the  loss 
of  children  and  widowhood  "  (xlvii.  6,  9).  Most  frequently 
the  compassion  of  Jehovah  arises  when  He  chastises  His 
people,  or  it  awakens  in  His  breast  to  arrest  His  chastening 
hand :  "  I  will  not  be  always  wroth :  for  the  spirits  would 
fail  before  me,  and  the  souls  which  I  have  made  "  (Ivii.  16). 

(/)  There  is  one  thing  else  to  notice.  That  the 
salvation  of  Israel  is  of  the  free  grace  of  God  is  consistently 
taught,  e.g.,  in  the  declaration,  "  Thou  hast  wearied  Me  with 
thy  sins.  I,  even  I,  am  He  tliat  blotteth  out  thy  trans- 
gressions for  Mine  own  sake ;  and  I  will  not  remember  thy 
sins"  (xliii.  24,  25);  and  in  many  other  passages.  In  one 
passage,  however,  there  is  an  idea  introduced  which  deserves 
attention.  It  is  there  said,  "  For  My  name's  sake  do  I  defer 
Mine  anger,  and  for  My  praise  do  I  refrain  from  thee,  that 

1  cut  thee  not  off:  for  how  should  My  name  be  profaned  ? 
and  My  glory  will  I  not  give  to  another"  (xlviii.  9,  11). 
Here  the  idea  seems  expressed  that  Jehovah's  motive  for 
saving  Israel  is  lest  His  name  should  be  profaned — that 
is,  lest  His  power  to  save  and  His  glory  as  God  should  be 
little  esteemed,  probably  among  the  nations.  This  shade 
of  idea  seems  to  occur  first  in  Ezekiel,  in  whom  it  is  very 
common.  There  the  motive  of  salvation  is  not  found  in  the 
condition  of  those  saved,  nor  in  the  love,  or  mercy,  or  good- 
ness of  God,  but  in  the  respect  which  He  has  to  His  own 
glory  or  name — as  we  might  almost  say,  His  reputation. 
Now,  no  doubt,  God  must  be  conceived  as  Himself  the  end 
of  all  His  operations ;  as  all  things  are  by  Him,  so  all 
things  are  uutu  Him.     The  idea,  however,  is  one   which 


174   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

ic(j Hires  to  be  very  carefully  exi)rcssed.  Otherwise,  we 
may  be  in  daugcr  of  iutioducing  a  certain  egoism  into  our 
conception  of  God  which  would  be  fatal  to  it.  When 
Moses  asked  to  see  Jehovah's  glory,  He  replied  that  He 
would  "  make  all  His  goodness  to  pass  before  him "  ;  and 
He  proclaimed  His  name,  "  The  Lord  merciful  and  gracious  " 
(Ex.  xxxiv.  6).  The  glory  of  God  is  His  goodness,  and  His 
goodness  is  His  blessedness.  He  is  glorified,  therefore,  not 
when  His  goodness  is  revealed  to  men,  and  they  admire  or 
praise  it ;  for  that  would  still  involve  a  certain  egoism. 
He  is  glorified  when  by  revealing  His  goodness  He  attracts 
men  unto  Himself,  and  His  own  goodness  is  reproduced  in 
them,  and  they  are  created  anew  in  His  image ;  for  to  be 
this  is  blessedness. 

Finally,  when  it  is  said  that  salvation  is  of  God's  free 
grace,  this  does  not  exclude  atonement  for  sin,  such  as  that 
rendered  by  the  Servant  of  the  Lord.  For  this  comes  in 
as  the  instrument  of  God's  grace :  "  It  pleased  the  Lord  to 
bruise  him;  He  put  him  to  grief"  (Isa.  liii.  10). 

These  points  are  all  mere  commonplaces  of  Christian 
doctrine.  But  it  is  of  interest  to  see  that  they  are  here 
already  in  the  Old  Testament — at  all  events  six  hundred 
years  before  the  Christian  age.  Christianity  brought  some- 
thing absolutely  new  into  the  world,  but  much  that  it 
embraces  was  already  prepared  for  it. 

When  we  consider  the  very  lofty  and  highly-developed 
doctrine  of  God  found  in  this  prophet,  it  is  somewhat  sur- 
prising to  find  him  mor^Oi<^icted  to  the  use  of  anthropo- 
morphisms than  any  other  prophet.  This  is,  no  doubt, 
due  to  his  highly  imaginative  mind,  and  the  strength  of 
his  relif^ious  fervour. 


5.   God's  Relations  to  Nature  and  to  Men. 

Much  more  might  be  said  in  this  connection  of  God's 
relations  to  nature  and  to  men.  With  respect  to  the 
former,  He  is  always  represented  as  the  Maker  of  all  things, 
heavens  and  earth,  and  all  creatures ;  and  on  the  hiohest 


RELATION   TO   NATURE  175 

scale  He  commands  uatiirc,  sending  a  flood  upon  the  sinful 
world,  opening  tlie  windows  of  heaven  above,  and  breaking 
up  tlie  fountains  of  the  great  deep  beneath  ;  overthrowing 
the  cities  of  the  plain  by  a  convulsion  of  nature ;  making 
tlie  stars  in  their  courses  to  fight  against  Sisera.  All 
earthly  forces  are  obedient  to  Him.  He  caused  the  east 
wind  to  blow  and  roll  back  the  sea  tliat  His  people  might 
pass  tlu'ougli ;  and  at  His  word  the  sea  returned  and  over- 
whelmed the  Egyptians.  The  plagues  were  brought  by 
Him  on  the  land  of  Egypt  and  on  the  royal  house.  For  the 
idolatry  of  Israel  under  Ahab  and  Jezebel,  He  scourged  the 
land  with  drought  three  and  a  half  years ;  and  when 
Elijah  prayed  earnestly  with  his  head  between  his  knees, 
He  gave  rain.  Perhaps  the  two  greatest  wonders  of  Deity 
to  the  ancient  mind  were  that  He  set  bounds  to  the  sea, 
and  that  He  gave  rain.  So  Jeremiah  says :  "  Let  us  now 
fear  the  Lord  our  God,  that  giveth  rain,  both  the  former 
and  the  latter,  in  his  season  "  (v.  24) ;  and  again :  "  Are 
there  any  among  the  vanities  of  the  heathen  that  can 
cause  rain  ?  ...  Is  it  not  Thou,  0  Lord  God  ?  "  (xiv.  22). 
In  punishment  of  Saul's  attempt  to  exterminate  the 
Gibeonites,  in  defiance  of  the  solemn  oath  by  which 
Israel,  under  Joshua,  had  bound  itself  to  spare  their  lives 
(Josh,  ix.).  He  sent  a  drought  and  a  famine,  which  were 
only  alleviated  when  expiation  was  made  for  the  blood 
which  Saul  had  shed.  And  to  chastise  the  pride  of  David 
in  numbering  the  people,  He  devastated  the  people  with 
a  pestilence  (2  Sam.  xxiv.).  In  all  these  cases  His  rule  of 
nature,  although  absolute,  appears  to  be  for  moral  ends,  as 
in  the  instances  of  the  Flood  and  Sodom. 

With  respect  to  God's  relation  to  men — nations  and 
individuals — in  the  early  period  of  the  Old  Testament 
history,  Israel  had  not  yet  entered  greatly  into  connection 
with  the  nations.  The  definite  teaching  of  Scripture  in 
regard  to  Jeliovah's  rule  of  the  nations,  therefore,  first 
appears  in  tlie  Prophets,  when  the  great  Assyrian  and 
Babylonian  empires  came  upon  the  scene  of  the  world's 
history.     But  the  conception  of  Jehovah's  relation  to  the 


176        THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

nations  is  tlic  same  in  the  early  history  as  in  the  Prophets, 
althouoli  it  is  not  so  broadly  expressed.  He  showed  His 
power  over  Egypt  when  He  brought  Israel  out  with  a  high 
hand  and  an  outstretched  arm  ;  when  He  laid  on  Egypt 
tlie  terrible  stroke  of  the  death  of  the  firstborn,  and  over- 
whelmed its  army  in  the  sea.  He  declared  war  for  ever 
against  Amalek,  and  gave  Israel  tlie  victory  over  that  power. 
And  that  the  victory  was  of  Him,  was  shown  by  the 
symbol,  that  wlien  the  hands  of  Moses,  uphfted  in  prayer, 
became  relaxed  and  hung  down,  Amalek  prevailed,  and 
when  they  were  held  up  Israel  prevailed.  The  view  is 
everywhere  expressed  that  Israel's  victories  ove.  the 
Canaanites  were  due  to  Jehovah. 

There  is  a  point  of  great  interest  here,  however,  in 
regard  to  the  conception  of  the  Lord  in  the  early  histc  io'; 
namely,  the  representation  of  Jehovah  as  predeteriniroing 
and  revealing  all  these  dispositions  of  His  in  regard  to  the 
nations  long  before  they  actually  occurred.  To  Abraham 
and  to  his  seed  He  promised  by  covenant  the  land  of 
Canaan.  The  territories  of  Moab  and  Amnion  He  assigned 
to  them ;  and  Israel's  conflicts  with  Edoiii  and  victory  over 
it  were  foreshadowed  in  the  struggles  of  the  two  children, 
Jacob  and  Esau,  before  their  birth.  Now,  most  modern 
writers  regard  all  this  as  just  the  actual  situation  which 
history  brought  about  reflected  back  upon  a  much  earlier 
time.  Jacob  and  Esau  were  never  children ;  they  are 
l^rothers,  because  kindred  peoples.  Their  struggles  before 
birth,  and  the  prediction  that  the  elder  should  serve  the 
younger,  reflect  the  history  of  David's  time.  Edom  or 
Esau  was  the  elder,  because  he  found  a  settled  abode 
earlier  tlian  Israel.  Jacob  robbed  his  brother  of  the  birth- 
right— meaning,  in  other  words,  that  Israel  inherited  the 
good  land  of  Canaan,  while  Edom  had  his  portion  in  the 
stony  desert.  And  the  promise  to  Abraham  of  the  land  of 
Canaan  is  a  reflection  of  the  actual  possession  of  Canaan  by 
Israel,  Abraham  being  their  greatest,  and,  above  all,  their 
spiritual,  ancestor.  How  much  truth  there  may  be  in 
these  representations  I  do  not  stop  here  to  discuss.     There 


PURPOSE  AND  REVELATION         177 

may  be  soiiio  in  regard  to  Jacob  and  Esau.  This,  bow- 
ever,  is  a  question  by  itself.  The  point  deserving  of  notice 
is  that  in  the  age  when  these  histories  were  written  these 
conceptions  of  Jeliovah  prevailed.  He  was  a  God  who  saw 
tlic  end  from  tlie  beginning,  who  purposed  and,  though 
He  long  delayed,  eventually  executed  His  purposes.  In 
Gen.  XV.  Jehovah  is  represented  as  making  a  covenant  with 
Abraham,  promising  that  the  land  of  Canaan  should  be  his, 
and  that  in  him  all  the  families  of  the  earth  should  be 
blessed.  The  two  essential  things  in  a  covenant  are,  first, 
the  disposition  or  engagement  on  the  part  of  God  to  do 
some  ^ct  of  goodness  or  grace  to  men ;  and,  second,  His 
making  this  purpose  known  to  men.  This  revelation  of 
His  purpose  of  goodness  is  necessary,  because  it  can  only  be 
carped  out  through  the  intelligent  and  spiritual  co-opera- 
tion .of  men.  The  covenants  are  momenta  in  the  reliaious 
history  of  man ;  and  as  this  history  is  a  redemptive  history, 
they  are  momenta  in  man's  redemptive  history.  This  being 
so,  they  are  more  than  successive  steps  in  the  revelation  of 
a  purpose ;  they  are  momenta  in  the  history  of  God's 
redemptive  indwelling  among  men,  and  His  entrance  into 
their  life.  Now,  undoubtedly,  when  the  narrative  in 
Gen.  XV.  was  written  this  idea  was  current  in  Israel  of  an 
engagement  on  the  part  of  Jehovah  to  give  Canaan  to 
Israel  as  his  abode,  and  to  bless  all  nations  throudi  him. 
Is  it  anything  incredible  that  this  should  have  been 
revealed  to  Abraham  ?  Amos  says :  "  Surely  the  Lord 
God  will  do  nothing,  but  He  reveals  His  secret  unto  His 
servants  the  prophets  "  (iii.  7).  The  characteristic  of  the 
Israelitish  mind  was  an  outlook  into  the  future.  In 
Isa.  xli.  prophecy,  even  prediction,  is  regarded  as  an 
essential  in  redemptive  history.  Jehovah  is  '  the  first  and 
the  last.'  He  is  conscious  of  His  own  purposes.  But  it  is 
His  indwelling  in  Israel  that  causes  Him  to  declare  them. 
Because  they  concern  Israel,  and  because  Israel,  His 
servant,  must  co-operate  towards  their  fulfilment,  they 
must  be  made  known  to  him.  Was  the  case  different  with 
Abraham  ?     If  he  was  anything  Like  that  character  which 

12 


178   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

these  early  histories  describe  him  to  have  been,  nothing 
would  seem  more  natural  than  that  he  should  be  made  to 
know  wliat  the  goal  was  to  be  to  which  his  history  looked. 
One  can  scarcely  explain  how  Israel  came  to  direct  its 
atttention  to  Canaan  when  it  escaped  from  Egypt,  unless 
it  had  some  tradition  of  its  destiny  alive  in  it. 

More  interesting  than  Israel's  views  of  the  way  in 
which  Jehovah  judged  and  ruled  the  nation,  and  approved 
Himself  its  God,  whether  in  giving  it  victory  over  its 
enemies,  or  in  visiting  its  sins  upon  it,  are  those  indica- 
tions that  are  given  of  how  Jehovah's  relations  to 
individuals  were  thought  of.  The  truth  that  God's 
covenant  at  Sinai  was  made  with  Israel  as  a  people,  and 
that  the  prophets  deal  mainly  with  the  State  and  its 
destinies,  rarely  with  individuals,  and  of  these  mainly  with 
the  riding  classes,  obscures,  for  the  time  being,  the  question 
of  Jehovah's  relation  to  individual  persons.  Indeed,  it  has 
been  asserted  that  down  to  the  time  of  the  prophet  Amos, 
no  individual  mind  in  Israel  was  conscious  of  a  personal 
relation  to  Jehovah.  This  is  serious  exaggeration.  From 
the  nature  of  the  case  less  is  said  of  such  relations  than 
we  might  wish.  But  enough  is  said  to  enable  us  to  see 
that  the  thought  of  Jehovah  entered  into  every  circum- 
stance of  the  people's  life.  That  Jehovah  is  conscious  of 
the  meaning  of  the  individual  is  sufficiently  plain.  He 
calls  Moses  by  name,  i.e.  He  conceives  his  meaning  as  a 
person  and  a  servant.  He  chooses  David,  calling  him 
from  the  sheep-cotes,  and  finds  him  a  man  after  His  own 
heart.  He  loves  Solomon.  It  is,  however,  in  certain 
relations  of  life  that  the  feeling  reveals  itself  how 
intimately  Jehovah  is  connected  with  the  life  of  men, 
and  enters  into  it.  Such  relations  are  those,  e.g.,  of 
family  life.  It  is  when  children  are  born  into  the  world 
that  the  pious  feelings  of  parents  are  most  strongly  evoked 
and  expressed.  So  the  names  of  most  children  are  com- 
pounded of  the  Divine  name.  Thankfulness  is  expressed, 
and  the  child  is  accepted  as  a  Divine  gift,  and  is  called, 
e.g.  Jonathan  = "  Jehovah  has  given,"  etc ;  or  some  hope 


GUARDIAN   OF   THE   COVENANT  170 

is  expressed  whicli  God  will  grant ;  or  some  happy  oineii 
is  seized  indicative  of  God's  purpose  with  regard  to  tlie 
cliild.  The  story  of  the  naming  of  Jacob's  children  in 
Padan-Aram  is  full  of  indications  how  closely  men  and 
women  felt  Jehovah  to  be  bound  up  with  their  history. 
And  there  is  perliaps  nothing  more  striking  in  Israel's 
history  than  this — that  it  is  cliieily  a  history  of  great 
individuals — Abraham,  Moses,  Elijali,  David,  etc. 

One  other  point,  illustrating  how  Jehovah  entered  into 
the  life  of  men,  may  be  mentioned.  That  is,  the  making 
of  contracts  or  covenants.  Into  these  Jehovah  is  repre- 
sented as  entering  as  a  third  party — the  Guardian  of  the 
contract.  Men  mutually  swore  by  Him.  Or  they  offered 
a  sacrifice,  of  which  part  was  given  to  Him,  while  the  rest  was 
eaten  together  by  the  contracting  parties ;  and  so  all  three 
were  drawn  into  the  bond,  and  bound  by  it.  When  Laban 
left  his  daughters  to  Jacob  in  Gilead,  they  made  a  covenant, 
raising  a  cairn  in  witness  of  it ;  and  Laban  on  parting  said  : 
"The  Lord  watch  between  me  and  thee  when  we  are 
absent  from  one  another"  (Gen.  xxxi.  49).  "God  is 
witness  betwixt  me  and  thee."  So  Sarah,  when  enraged 
by  Hagar,  her  maid,  said  to  her  husband :  "  The  Lord 
judge  between  me  and  thee "  (Gen.  xvi.  5).  The  Lord 
everywhere  upholds  right.  Sometimes  it  seems  that  the 
conception  held  of  Jehovah  was  very  severe,  and  sometimes 
His  action  seemed  to  sliow  great  jealousy  of  any  familiarity 
with  anything  specially  His  or  holy,  as  when  He  struck 
down  Uzzah  for  putting  his  hand  to  the  ark  to  uphold  it 
when  it  tottered  (2  Sam.  vi.  6,  7),  and  slew  seventy  men 
of  Bethshemesh  for  looking  into  the  ark  (1  Sam.  vi.  19). 
Yet  His  pious  servants  show  the  profoundcst  humility 
before  Jehovah  and  submission  to  His  will.  When  EU 
heard  from  Samuel  that  his  house  was  doomed  to  forfeit 
the  priesthood  and  perish,  he  said :  "  It  is  Jeliovah,  let 
Him  do  what  seemeth  good  "  (1  Sam.  iii.  18).  When  David 
tloil  l)efore  Absalom,  and  was  cuvscmI  by  Shimei,  whom  his 
servants  wislicd  to  l)e  allowed  to  slay,  he  said  :  "  Let  him 
curse :   for  the   Lord  hath  said    unto  him,    Curse  David " 


180   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

(2  Sam.  xvi.  10).  And  it  is  in  these  histories  that  the 
Lord  proclaims  His  name :  "  The  Lord  God,  merciful  and 
gracious,  forgiving  iniquity  and  sin,"  pardoning  the  sin 
of  David  in  the  matter  of  Uriah  (2  Sam.  xii.  17),  and 
graciously  granting  the  prayer  of  the  afflicted  Hannah 
at  Shiloh  (1  Sam.  i.  10,  17).  My  impression  is  that  even 
in  the  most  ancient  passages  of  the  Old  Testament 
essentially  the  same  thought  of  Jehovah  is  to  be  found 
as  appears  in  the  Prophets  and  the  later  literature. 

The  doctrine  of  Jehovah  receives  few  developments 
during  the  course  of  the  Old  Testament  period.  It  is  stated 
more  broadly  in  the  later  books,  but  in  the  oldest  writings 
the  germs  of  it  are  contained.  Instead  of  quoting  separate 
passages,  it  will  be  enough,  in  bringing  this  statement  to  an 
end,  to  refer  to  one  passage  which  gives  a  very  vivid  picture 
of  what  may  be  called  the  consciousness  of  God  in  the  mind 
of  Old  Testament  saints.  That  is  the  cxxxixth  Psalm.  Here 
we  see,  first,  how  the  Psalmist  begins  with  the  expression  of 
God's  general  knowledge  of  man,  even  of  his  heart :  "  Thou 
hast  searched  me,  and  known  me."  The  writer  feels  him- 
self standing  before  One  who  knotvs.  The  knowledge  and 
the  whole  relations  expressed  are  properly  ethical,  but  the 
ethical  at  times — so  strong  is  the  feeling  of  the  presence 
of  the  Person  who  knows,  and  of  His  scrutiny  pervading 
the  whole  nature — seems  to  pass  into  the  physical,  and 
the  image  of  one  substance  or  element  surrounding  and 
compressing  another  is  used  to  body  out  the  almost  physical 
feeling  of  God's  presence.  But  that  this  is  only  a  powerful 
way  of  expressing  the  ethical,  is  seen  from  the  concluding 
prayer :  "  Search  me,  .  .  .  and  lead  me  in  the  way  ever- 
lasting." 

Second,  this  one  general  feeling  of  being  known  is  Ijroken 
up  into  particulars  :  "  Thou  knowest  my  sittinff  doivn  and  my 
ridng  up,  .,  .  .  Thou  hast  sifted  my  going  and  lying  doivn" 
The  outward  is  known,  sifted,  every  mode  in  which  existence 
expresses  itself  is  seen  througli.  But  it  is  not  so  much  the 
things  themselves  as  that  out  of  wliich  they  come :  "  Thou 
knowest  my  thought  afar  olf/'  long  ere  it  be  formed ;  ere 


THE    HUNDRED    AND   THIRTY-NINTH    PSALM        181 

the  word  bo  on  my  tongue,  TIiou  knowcst  it  all.  This 
feeling  of  being  known  by  One  present  is  so  strong  that  it 
expresses  itself  in  the  figure  of  physical  pressure ;  this 
piercing  eye,  this  seeing  Person  is  so  near  that  He  thrusts 
Himself  against  the  Psalmist — "  Thou  pressest  me  l)efore 
and  behind  " ;  the  faculties  of  his  soul,  not  to  speak  of  his 
body,  have  not  room  to  play,  to  move,  for  this  impinging 
element  about  them,  bearing  in  upon  them,  and  liampering 
tliem  in  their  action.  And  this  figure  is  varied  by  another, 
that  of  the  grasp  of  a  hand  laid  upon  the  man,  by  which 
he  is  carried  about,  and  from  beneath  which  he  cannot 
move  :  "  Such  knowledge  is  too  deep  for  me  "  ;  he  is  unable 
to  grasp  it. 

Third,  this  surrounding,  compressing  element  bears  in 
upon  him  with  such  terrors  and  causes  such  awe,  that  the 
thought  rises  in  his  mind  whether  he  might  not  flee  from  it. 
But  that  cannot  be :  "  Whither  from  Thy  spirit  can  I  go  ? 
If  I  ascend  into  heaven.  Thou  art  there :  if  I  descend  into 
Sheol,  Thou  art  also  there :  if  I  take  the  wings  of  the 
morning,  and  dwell  in  the  uttermost  part  of  the  earth, 
there  will  Thy  hand  hold  me."  The  physical  figure,  by 
which  the  Divine  omniscience  was  expressed,  leads  through 
the  thought  of  the  escape  from  it,  if  that  were  possible,  to 
the  expression  of  the  Divine  omnipresence.  The  two  are 
hardly  distinct  things ;  He  who  knows,  God  as  knowing, 
is  an  all-pervading  presence.  This  surrounding  element, 
how  shall  he  escape  it  ?  this  inbearing,  oppressing  spirit, 
that  thrusts  itself  close  unto  him,  how  shall  he  elude  it  ? 
"  Whither  from  Thy  spirit  can  I  go  ?  "  In  heaven,  in  hell, 
in  east  or  west — though  he  should  pass  from  the  highest 
heaven  to  the  deepest  Sheol,  or  through  space  as  swift  as 
the  light  from  east  to  west,  the  hand  that  lies  on  him  will 
stilL  lie — "  Thy  right  hand  holds  me."  Even  in  the  dark- 
ness he  is  conscious  of  a  face  beholding  him — to  God  the 
darkness  is  as  light. 

Fourth,  the  Psalmist  adds  words  which  seem  partly 
meant  to  l)e  an  explanation  of  this  knowledge  of  God — 
"  for  Thou  hast  possessed  my  reins,"  or  "  hast  made  my  reins." 


182   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

If  the  former,  as  the  reins  denoted  what  we  mean  by  the 
conscience  or  consciousness,  the  meaning  is,  that  God  had 
settled  down  in  his  consciousness.  If  this  were  the  mean- 
ing, the  figure  would  be  deserted,  and  the  literal  meaning 
expressed.  It  is  perhaps  more  likely  that  the  meaning  is, 
*'  Thou  hast  made  my  reins."  This  both  explains  God's 
knowledge,  and  deepens  the  expression  of  it.  God  knows 
him ;  for  He  was  present  at  the  beginning  of  his  being, 
and  foresaw  and  designed  all  that  it  should  be — all  his 
members  before  they  were  "  written  in  His  Book." 
God  formed  him,  and  prescribed  and  looked  forward  to  all 
that  he  should  be  ;  His  knowledge  of  him  is  not  new.  And 
to  the  mind  of  the  Psalmist  there  is  a  certain  awfulness  in 
this  thought :  "  Such  thoughts  are  too  heavy  for  me  " ;  he 
is  fascinated  by  this  sense  of  God,  and  cannot  dispel  it 
from  his  mind.  When  he  awakes  in  the  morning,  it  still 
haunts  him  and  fills  his  mind — "  when  I  awake  I  am  still 
with  Thee";  still  occupied  with  Thee.  His  consciousness  of 
God  has  become  the  other  half  of  his  consciousness  of  himself. 
Yet,  that  all  this  conception  of  God,  however  much 
expressed  in  physical  figures,  is  mainly  ethical,  appears, 
as  we  have  said,  from  the  prayer  with  which  the  Psalmist 
concludes :  "  Search  me,  and  know  my  heart :  try  me,  and 
know  my  thoughts :  and  see  if  there  be  any  wicked  way 
in  me,  and  lead  me  in  the  way  everlasting."  Though  he 
fears  the  searching,  yet  he  invites  it.  The  Divine,  although 
awful,  yet  attracts.  He  is  fascinated  by  the  Divine  light, 
almost  as  the  insect  by  the  lamp ;  and  he  must  move 
towards  it,  even  though  there  be  danger  that  it  should 
consume  him. 


VL   THE  DOCTRINE  OF  MAK 

1.  Human  Nature  and  its  Constitution, 

On  the  sul)jcct  of  Old  Testament  Anthropology  the  first 
question  that  presents  itself  is  the  question  of  human  nature 


QUESTION    OF   A    BIBLICAL    PSYCHOLOGY  183 

itself  and  its  cleinents,  as  they  are  spoken  of  in  Scripture. 
Much  lias  been  written  on  tlic  sul)iect  of  the  rsychology  of 
the  Old  Testament.  Many  systems  of  Uiblieal  Psyoliology 
have  been  constructed,  and  the  points  signalised  in  which 
this  Psychology  differs  from  ordinary  Psychology.  Two 
points  have  generally  been  much  insisted  on.  One  is  that 
the  Bible  teaches  a  trichotomy,  or  threefold  division  of 
human  nature,  hody,  soul,  and  sjnrit ;  and  the  other  is  that 
the  spirit  is  the  highest  element  in  man,  the  element  allied 
to  God,  the  element  endowed  with  the  power  of  receiving 
God  and  Divine  influences.  It  is  not  easy  to  bring  into 
system  or  order  the  statements  of  Scripture  regarding  the 
nature  of  man,  and  its  several  elements  or  sides.  But  the 
following  remarks  may  be  made : 

(1)  What  we  may  expect  in  the  Old  Testament  is  not 
scientific,  but  popular  phraseology.  Any  such  thing  as  a 
science  of  the  mind,  whether  just  or  false,  is  not  to  be 
looked  for  among  the  people  of  Israel  in  Old  Testament 
times.  A  Biblical  Psychology  of  the  same  class  as  other 
psychologies  of  a  philosophical  or  natural  kind,  but  distinct 
and  different  from  them,  is  not  to  be  expected.  It  is  the 
purpose  of  the  Old  Testament  to  impress  practical  religious 
truth  on  men's  minds,  and  with  this  view  it  speaks  their 
ordinary  language,  not  the  language  of  the  schools,  if,  indeed, 
we  could  suppose  such  a  language  to  have  existed  at  the 
time. 

(2)  If  the  Old  Testament  speaks  the  popular  language, 
its  usage  will  reflect  aU  the  varieties  of  that  language. 
We  cannot  expect  a  more  constant  use  of  terms  in  par- 
ticular senses  than  actually  prevailed  among  the  people. 
If  the  popular  language  contained  distinctions,  these  will 
appear  in  the  Old  Testament ;  and  if  words  were  used  with- 
out discrimination  and  indifferently  in  the  mouths  of  the 
people,  this  indiscriminate  usage  will  appear  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. It  is  not  probable  that  in  the  Old  Testament  there 
is  any  advance  over  popular  usage  in  the  direction  of  a 
fixed  or  scientific  phraseology. 

(3)  In  this  connection  it  is  proper  to  refer  to  the  New 


184   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

Testament  and  its  ideas.  Tlic  New  Testament  phraseology 
is  not  purely  Jewisli,  Itut  has  been  influenced  by  Greek 
thought.  And  in  the  New  Testament  there  may  be  ob- 
served an  approach  towards  a  more  fixed  or  definite  use 
of  terms.  But  even  in  the  New  Testament  there  is  no 
Biblical  Psychology  in  a  scientific  sense.  The  New  Testa- 
ment Psychology  is  not  meant  to  be  a  psychology  of  the  mind 
as  regards  its  substance  or  elements,  or  even  its  operations, 
except  on  a  certain  side  of  these  operations.  All  that  we 
have  is  an  ethical  and  rehgious  phraseology.  The  Psy- 
chology of  the  New  Testament  is  part  of  its  ethics,  and 
cannot  be  pursued  further  back  so  as  to  be  made  strictly 
a  'psychology  or  physiology  of  the  mind.  It  remains  a 
description  of  the  mind  or  its  attitudes  ethically  and 
religiously.  It  might,  no  doubt,  be  legitimate  and  useful 
to  inquire  whether  the  New  Testament  phraseology,  applied 
tliere  exclusively  in  an  ethical  way,  might  not  have  partly 
arisen  from  previous  speculations  of  a  more  purely  psycho- 
logical kind.  It  is  not  unlikely  that  such  speculations  in 
some  degree  infiuenced  the  language  of  the  New  Testament 
writers.  But  a  distinction  should  be  drawn  between  the 
New  Testament  usage,  which  is  exclusively  ethical,  and 
previous  usage  of  a  more  strictly  philosophical  kind  which 
such  inquiries  might  reveal.  The  latter  should  not  be 
mixed  up  with  wliat  is  called  Biblical  Psychology.  And 
perhaps  such  a  phrase  should  not  be  used  at  all ;  for  it 
suggests  the  idea,  for  which  there  is  no  foundation,  that 
the  Scriptures  contain  a  peculiar  psychological  nomen- 
clature distinct  from  that  of  popular  usage,  which  is  not 
true  in  any  sense,  and  tAat  this  nomenclature  might  be 
compared  or  contrasted  with  that  of  secular  systems  of 
philosophy  of  the  mind,  wliicli  is  only  true  in  this  sense, 
that  terms  wliich  in  secular  systems  are  used  in  a  strictly 
psychological  way,  are  in  the  Scriptures  used  ethically  or 
reUgiously. 

There  are  certain  passages  in  the  New  Testament  that 
might  seem,  and  by  many  have  been  held,  to  establish  a 
distinction  between  soul  and  spirit  of  a  kind  to  be  named 


QUESTION    OF    A    TRICHOTOMY  185 

substantial,  and  consequently  to  tcacli  a  tricliotoniy  of 
human  nature,  a  division  into  three  distinct  elements.  In 
1  Thess.  V.  23  occur  the  words:  "And  the  very  God  of 
peace  sanctify  you  wholly :  and  may  your  spirit  and  soul 
and  body  be  preserved  entire,  witliout  blame,  at  the  coming 
of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  The  commentary  of  a  writer, 
not  undeserving  of  attention,  on  this  passage  is  as  follows : 
"  The  position  of  the  epithet  shows  that  the  prayer  is  not 
.  .  .  that  the  whole,  spirit,  soul,  and  body,  the  three  asso- 
ciated together,  may  be  preserved,  but, — that  each  part 
may  be  preserved  in  its  completeness.  Not  mere  associated 
preservation,  but  preservation  in  an  individually  complete 
state,  is  the  burden  of  the  apostle's  prayer.  The  prayer  is, 
in  fact,  threefold :  first,  that  they  may  be  sanctified  by 
God,  the  God  of  peace, — for  sanctification  is  the  condition 
of  outward  and  inward  peace, — wholly  (6\ore\€L<i)  in  their 
collective  powers  and  constituents ;  next,  that  each  con- 
stituent may  be  preserved  to  our  Lord's  coming;  and 
lastly,  that  each  so  preserved  may  be  entire  and  com- 
plete in  itself,  not  mutilated  or  disintegrated  by  sin ;  that 
the  body  may  retain  its  yet  uneffaced  image  of  God,  and 
its  unimpaired  aptitude  to  be  a  living  sacrifice  to  its  Maker ; 
the  appetitive  soul,  its  purer  hopes  and  nobler  aspirations ; 
the  spirit,  its  ever  blessed  associate,  the  holy  and  eternal 
Spirit  of  God."  1 

This  New  Testament  passage  certainly  names  three 
constituent  elements  of  human  nature,  names  them  all  co- 
ordinately,  and  speaks  of  each  as  needing  sanctification,  and 
as  capable  of  preservation.  And  it  might  be  plausibly 
argued  that,  as  the  three  are  specially  named,  there  is  as 
good  reason  for  considering  the  spirit  distinct  from  the  soiil, 
as  there  is  for  considering  the  body  distinct  from  either. 
But  this  reasoning  would  be  seen  to  go  further  than  it 
ought ;  for  the  distinction  between  soul  and  spirit,  even 
admitting  it,  can  hardly  be  one  of  essence.  And  on  the 
other  side  it  may  not  unfairly  be  represented  that  the 
apostle's  language  does  not  require,  in  order  to  justify  it, 

^  Ellicott,  Destiny  of  the  Creature,  p.  107. 


186   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

a  distinction  of  organs  or  substances,  but  may  be  accounted 
for  l)y  a  soniowliat  vivid  conception  of  one  substance  in 
ditlerent  relations  or  under  dillerent  aspects.  In  ordinary 
language  we  certainly  speak  of  soul  as  well  as  of  spirit ;  and 
in  liis  fervid  desire  for  the  complete  and  perfect  sanctifica- 
tion  of  his  disciples,  the  apostle  accumulates  these  terms 
togetlier,  so  as  to  give  an  exhaustive  expression  to  the 
whole  being  and  nature  of  man. 

In  Heb.  iv.  12  there  occurs  a  similar  passage:  "For 
the  word  of  God  is  quick,  and  powerful,  and  sharper  than 
any  two-edged  sword,  piercing  even  to  the  dividing  asunder 
of  soul  and  spirit,  of  both  joints  and  marrow,  and  quick  to 
discern  the  thoughts  and  intents  of  the  heart."  The  word 
of  God  has  four  attributes  assigned  to  it :  it  is  quick,  that 
is,  living,  as  we  speak  of  the  quick  and  the  dead ;  it  is 
powerful,  that  is,  active  ;  it  is  sharp  ;  and  being  so,"  it  pierces 
even  to  the  dividing  of  soul  and  spirit.  The  word  '  divid- 
ing '  means  here  the  act  of  dividing  rather  than  the  place 
of  division.  The  meaning  does  not  seem  to  be  that  the 
word  of  God,  like  a  two-edged  sword,  enters  so  deep  as  to 
reach  the  place  of  division,  the  seam,  or  boundary  line  be- 
tween soul  and  spirit,  but  that  it  goes  so  deep  as  to  effect 
a  division  of  them.  Some  doubt  may  remain  whether  the 
sharp  Word  of  God  effects  a  division  between  the  soul  and 
spirit,  or  a  division  within  them — whether  it  separates 
between  the  two,  or  cuts  asunder  each,  as  we  might  say 
dissects  both  the  soul  and  spirit. 

In  comparison  with  the  question,  indeed,  whether  the 
soul  and  the  spirit  be  distinct  things,  this  other  question  is 
of  less  consequence.  The  passage  recognises  two  things,  one 
called  soul,  and  another  called  spirit.  Are  these  conceived 
to  be  separated  by  something  introduced  between  them, — an 
operation  delicate  enough,  but  one  which  an  instrument  so 
sharp  as  the  word  of  God  is  qualified  to  accomplish  ?  Or 
is  it  that  each  of  them  is  divided  and  cut  open  into  its  own 
elements  ?  Probal)ly  the  view  that  the  division  is  made 
not  between  the  soul  and  the  spirit,  but  within  each  of 
them,  is  the  true  one.     If   the  other  view  were  correct, 


DIVIDING    OF   SOUL   AND    SPIRIT  187 

tli.'xt  according  to  whicli  a  division  is  effected  by  the  word 
of  God  between  soul  and  spirit,  a  relation  between  soul 
and  spirit  would  be  suggested  wliich  is  injurious  to  the 
latter,  a  sensuous  sinking  of  the  spirit  into  the  soul,  where 
its  higher  energies  become  drowsy,  and  expire  in  the  soft, 
voluptuous  lap  of  the  lower  psychical  nature ;  and  the 
word  of  God  comes  to  dissever  and  divorce  this  depressing 
union,  and  elevate  the  spirit  again  to  a  position  of  freedom 
and  command.  This  interpretation,  however,  is  less  prob- 
able. The  meaning  is  rather  that  the  word  of  God  is  so 
sharp  that  it  pierces  and  dissects  both  the  soul  and  spirit, 
separates  each  into  its  parts,  subtle  though  they  be,  analyses 
and  discerns  their  thoughts  and  intents. 

But  in  any  case  the  question  forces  itself  upon  us — 
Are  we  here  on  the  ground  of  literal  speech  or  of 
metaphor  ?  A  writer  whose  imaginative  and  rhetorical 
manner  endows  the  word  of  God  with  life  and  activity 
may  very  readily  conceive  one  thing  in  its  various  states 
and  connections  as  various  things.  We  need  to  remember 
that  the  writers  of  Scripture  were  Oriental,  or  we  shall 
be  in  danger  of  taking  figures  of  speech  for  statements  of 
doctrine.  Perhaps,  too,  the  vivid  grandeur  of  the  concep- 
tions of  Scripture  is  not  altogether  due  to  their  authors 
being  children  of  the  East.  The  time  when  these  concep- 
tions were  formed  was  one  of  profound  excitement.  Old 
systems  of  thought  and  life  were  breaking  up  under  the 
fresh  influence  of  Christian  thought  like  an  ice-bound 
river,  and  the  strong  currents  newly  released  were  dashing 
the  fragments  ajiainst  one  another.  A  new  moral  world 
had  suddenly  been  created,  more  real,  and  to  the  earnest 
imagination  of  the  time  almost  more  substantial,  than 
the  world  of  matter.  It  was  not  mere  conceptions  amidst 
which  men  stood ;  it  was  things,  almost  beings. 

Even  to  a  man  of  the  character  of  St.  Paul  the  words 
sin,  death,  law,  and  the  like  represented  personalities  rather 
than  abstract  ideas.  He  wrestled  with  them,  as  they 
wrestled  with  one  another.  And  it  was  not  outside  of  him 
alone,  or   for   him,  that  the  conflict   was   cari'icd  on,  but 


188   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

withiu  liioi.  He  found  himself  divided.  One  less  con- 
scious than  he  was,  tliat  the  influence  which  gave  men 
power  to  be  at  any  time  victorious  over  the  evil  within 
them  came  from  without,  might  have  described  his  moral 
sensations  by  saying  that  he  felt  himself  sometimes  on  the 
side  of  good  and  sometimes  on  the  side  of  evil.  But  the 
apostle  was  not  sometimes  one  hind  of  man  and  sometimes 
another ;  he  was  two  men,  or  there  were  two  men  within 
him.  There  w^as  an  old  man  and  a  netv  man,  an  inner  man 
and  another.  And  where  the  fervour  of  the  religious 
imagination  produced  creations  like  these,  it  may  easily  be 
conceived  to  have  spoken  of  two  aspects  of  the  one  thing, 
the  mind,  as  if  they  were  two  things.  Elsewhere,  both  with 
St.  Paul  and  with  the  author  of  Hebrews,  we  find  human 
nature  spoken  of  as  consisting  of  two  elements  only.  The 
one  speaks  of  "  cleansing  ourselves  from  all  filthiness  of  the 
flesh  and  ^loirit,  perfecting  holiness  in  the  fear  of  God" 
(2  Cor.  vii.  1) ;  and  the  other,  of  our  drawing  near  unto 
God,  "  having  our  hearts  sprinkled  from  an  evil  conscience, 
and  our  bodies  washed  with  pure  water"  (x.  22).  It  is 
most  likely,  therefore,  that  the  trichotomy  which  appears 
in  some  other  passages  is  rhetorical,  and  not  to  be  taken 
literally. 

2.   The  terms  *  Body'  and  'Flesh.' 

If  we  return  now  to  the  Old  Testament  and  inquire 
how  the  three  terms,  hody,  soul,  and  spirit,  are  employed 
there,  the  following  may  be  taken  as  an  outline  of  what 
the  usasje  is : 

As  to  the  hody.  The  Hebrew  word  for  '  body '  is  n;i3, 
which  is  sometimes  used  for  the  living  body  (Ezek.  i.  11, 
"bodies  of  the  Cherubim";  Gen.  xlvii.  18;  Neh.  ix.  37), 
but  usually  for  the  dead  body  or  carcase.  This  term  hardly 
corresponds  to  the  Greek  o-cofjua.  Properly  speaking, 
Hebrew  has  no  term  for  *  body/  The  Hebrew  term 
around  which  questions  relating  to  the  body  must  gather 
i^  flesh,  ">b^3.     Now,  the  only  question  really  of  interest  in 


THE   TERM    '  FLESH  '  189 

regard  to  this  term  is  the  question  whether  in  tlic  Old 
Testament  an  ethical  idea  had  already  begun  to  attach  to 
it  ?  Such  an  ethical  use  of  the  word  '  Hesh/  aap^,  is 
very  characteristic  of  the  New  Testament,  at  least  of  the 
Pauline  Epistles;  and  it  is  of  interest  to  inquire  wliether 
it  be  found  also  in  the  Old  Testament. 

The  word  '  flesh '  is  found  in  the  Old  Testament  used  of 
the  muscular  part  of  the  body  in  distinction  from  other 
parts,  such  as  skin,  bones,  blood,  and  the  like,  especially 
such  parts  of  animals  slain  for  food  or  for  sacrifice.  Hence 
it  is  used  for  food  along  with  bread  (Ex.  xvi.  3),  or  wine, 
— eating  flesh  and  drinking  wine  (Isa.  xxii.  13), — and 
forms  the  main  element  of  the  sacrifice.  The  fact  that  it 
is  used  for  sacrifice,  and  offered  to  the  Lord  as  His  fire-food, 
shows  that  no  uncleanness  belongs  to  the  flesli  as  such. 
The  distinctness  of  clean  and  unclean  among  animals  is  not 
one  due  to  the  flesh,  for  they  are  all  alike  flesh.  The  flesh 
in  itself  has  no  impurity  attaching  to  it ;  it  is  of  no  moral 
quality. 

In  living  creatures  the  same  distinctions  are  drawn 
between  the  flesh  of  the  body  and  other  parts  of  it — "  this 
is  bone  of  my  bone,  and  flesh  of  my  flesh."  But  the  flesh 
being  the  most  outstanding  part  of  the  living  creature, 
covering  the  bones  and  containing  the  blood,  it  naturally 
came  to  be  used,  the  part  being  taken  for  the  whole,  of 
the  living  creature  in  general.  In  this  sense  it  represents 
the  creature  as  an  organised  being,  flexible,  smooth,  and 
possessing  members.  In  Arabic  the  corresponding  word  is 
used  of  the  surface  of  the  body  as  smooth  and  fresh ;  and  it 
is  curious  that  in  Hebrew  Jlesh  in  this  sense  does  not  seem 
to  be  employed  of  animals  covered  with  featliers  or  hair, 
and  probably  the  soft,  fresh  muscle  and  tlie  smooth  surface 
of  the  animal  body  is  the  prominent  notion.  Hence  a 
usage  whicli  is  as  far  as  possible  from  casting  any  aspersion 
of  an  ethical  kind  upon  the  fiesli,  in  the  prophet  Ezekiel, 
wlio  says :  "  A  new  heart  will  I  give  unto  you  ...  I  will 
take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I  will 
give  you  an  heart  of  flesh"  (xxxvi.  26). 


190        THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

This  usage  forms  the  transition  to  a  wider  one,  accord- 
ing to  wliich  sensuous  creatures,  particularly  mankind,  are 
called  all  flesh.  This  remarkable  expression  for  mankind, 
or  for  sensuous  creatures  in  general,  is  usually,  however, 
employed  in  a  way  that  may  suggest  its  origin.  It  is  gener- 
ally, or  at  least  very  often,  used  when  there  is  an  antithesis 
of  some  kind  suggested  between  mankind  and  God.  And 
it  is  possible  that  this  antithesis  gave  rise  to  this  way  of 
naming  mankind.  The  suggestive  passage  Isa.  xxxi.  3, 
"  The  Egyptians  are  men,  and  not  God :  and  their  horses 
are  flesh,  and  not  spirit,"  perhaps  gives  a  key  to  the  kind 
of  idea  underlying  the  usage.  The  idea  must  be  carefully 
observed.  The  passage  begins  :  "  Woe  to  them  that  go  down 
to  Egypt  for  help ;  that  stay  (trust)  on  horses,  and  look 
not  unto  the  Holy  One  of  Israel."  The  question  with  the 
prophet  is  a  question  of  help,  or  where  real  strength  lies. 
Therefore  when  he  says,  "  their  horses  are  flesh,  and  not 
spirit,"  his  point  is  not  what  the  horses  are  composed  of, 
but  what  they  are  able  to  accomplish. 

When  Jehovah  is  called  Spirit,  it  is  not  a  question  of 
His  essence,  but  of  His  power.  And  when  men  are  spoken 
of  as  all  flesh,  the  emphasis  does  not  fall  on  that  which  they 
are  made  of,  but  it  rather  expresses  a  secondary  idea,  no 
doubt  suggested  by  this,  the  idea  of  their  weakness.  Flesh 
as  one  sees  it  is  perishable,  and  subject  to  decay  ;  when 
the  spirit  is  withdrawn  it  turns  into  its  dust.  As  thus 
feeble  and  subject  to  decay,  in  contrast  with  God  who  is 
eternal,  mankind  and  all  creatures  are  spoken  of  as  all 
flesh.  The  primary  sense  may  perhaps  be  seen  in  Deut. 
V.  26:  "For  what  is  all  flesh,  that  it  might  hear  the 
voice  of  the  living  God  speaking  out  of  the  midst  of  the 
fire,  as  we,  and  live?"  And,  similarly,  Isa.  xl.  6,  7  :  "All 
flesh  is  grass  .  .  ,  the  grass  withereth  .  .  .  but  tlie  word 
of  our  God  shall  stand  for  ever."  Naturally,  supposing 
this  to  be  the  origin  of  the  expression,  it  came  also  to 
be  used  when  no  sucli  antithesis  between  mankind  and 
God  was  designed  to  be  expressed.  The  plir^vse  might 
have   arisen   from    the    fact    that    the    flesh    or    body   of 


THE   FLESH   AND   MORAL   FRAILTY  191 

animated  creatures  is  the  prominent  tiling  about  them  to 
the  eye ;  but  in  any  case  the  expression  denotes  usually 
the  weakness  and  perishableness  of  those  creatures  called 
'  flesh.'  Mankind  is  also  called  C'SJ  ^D  ;  but  this  phrase 
denotes  every  individual  of  mankind,  whereas  all  flesh  is 
rather  the  whole  race ;  the  characteristic  of  which  is  that 
it  is  flesh,  and  therefore  weak  and  perishable. 

Now  this  leads  to  the  last  point,  namely,  whether  the 
term  '  flesh '  is  used  in  an  ethical  sense,  to  imply  moral  defect, 
or  to  be  the  source  of  moral  weakness.  The  Hebrews  are 
rather  apt  to  confuse  the  physical  and  the  moral.  There 
was,  of  course,  no  tendency  among  them,  as  with  us,  to 
resolve  the  moral  into  the  physical,  and  obliterate  the  moral 
idea  altogether.  The  tendency  was  the  contrary  one,  to 
give  moral  significance  to  the  physical  or  material ;  to 
consider  the  physical  but  a  form  or  expression  of  the  moral. 
So  specific  forms  of  disease  acquired  a  moral  meaning,  and 
were  religious  uncleannesses.  To  touch  the  dead  created 
a  religious  disability.  This  arose  from  their  mixing  up  the 
two  spheres,  and  their  thinking  of  them  in  connection  with 
one  another ;  or  it  led  to  it.  And  this  being  the  case,  it 
might  be  very  natural  for  them  to  give  to  the  physical 
weakness  of  mankind  as  '  flesh '  a  moral  complexion. 
Whether  they  did  so  is  diflicult  to  decide.  They  often 
couple  the  two  together — man's  moral'  and  his  physical 
weakness.  The  Psalmist,  in  Ps.  ciii.,  blesses  God,  who 
healeth  all  our  diseases  and  forgiveth  all  our  sins.  Yet 
here  the  things,  though  combined,  are  still  distinct.  And 
so  in  another  beautiful  passage,  Ps.  Ixxviii.  38,  39  :  "  But 
He,  being  full  of  compassion,  forgave  their  iniquity  .  .  . 
yea,  many  a  time  turned  He  His  anger  away.  .  .  .  For 
He  remembered  that  they  were  but  flesh ;  a  wind  that 
passeth  away,  and  cometh  not  again."  Here  flesh  and 
iniquity  are  by  no  means  confounded;  on  the  contrary, 
He  forgave  their  iniquity  because  He  remembered  that 
they  were  flesh — that  is,  transitory  beings,  a  wind  that 
passeth  away  and  cometh  not  again. 

It  is  possible  that  in  such  passages,  where  sin  and  flesh 


192   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

'^o  tdgetlicr,  the  feeling  appears  that  it  is  to  be  expected 
that  beings  so  weak  physically  should  be  weak  morally,  and 
liable  to  sin.  This  seems  to  be  the  view  in  Job  xiv.  1—4 : 
"  Man,  born  of  woman,  is  of  few  days,  and  full  of  trouble. 
He  cometli  forth  as  a  flower,  and  withereth :  he  fleeth  as  a 
sliadow,  and  continueth  not.  And  dosb  thou  open  thine  eyes 
upon  such  an  one,  and  bringest  me  into  judgnient  witli  thee  ? 
0  tliat  a  clean  could  be  out  of  an  unclean  !  there  is  not 
one."  Here  the  two  things,  physical  frailness  and  moral 
uncleanness,  again  go  together ;  but  they  do  not  seem  con- 
fused. Neither  are  they  confused  in  the  words  of  Eliphaz, 
chap.  iv.  17—19:  "Shall  man  be  righteous  with  God? 
.  .  .  Behold,  He  charges  His  angels  with  error ;  how  much 
more  man,  that  dwelleth  in  houses  of  clay,  which  are 
crushed  before  the  moth."  And  there  is  a  similar  passage 
in  chap.  xv.  14.  In  all  such  passages  the  universal  sin- 
fulness of  mankind  is  strongly  expressed,  and  his  physical 
weakness  and  hability  to  decay  serve  to  strengthen  the 
impression  or  assurance  of  his  moral  frailty.  It  is  this 
moral  fallibility  that  is  insisted  on.  There  is  also  reference 
to  his  physical  frailty  and  brief  life ;  he  is  called  flesh,  and 
said  to  dwell  in  houses  of  clay  and  the  like.  It  is  con- 
sidered natural  that  one  physically  so  frail  should  also  be 
morally  frail  and  sinful.  Physical  frailty  is  pleaded  as  a 
ground  of  compassion  for  moral  frailty.  But  the  two  do 
not  seem  to  be  confounded ;  neither  is  it  taught  that  the 
cause  of  man's  moral  frailty  is  to  be  found  in  his  physical 
nature,  or  that  the  flesh  is  in  itself  sinful,  or  the  seat 
of  sin. 


3.   The  term  '  Spirit* 

The  words  spirit,  nn,  and  soul,  trQ3,  are  often  put  in 
antithesis  to  the  flesh,  and  express  the  invisible  element  in 
man's  nature — the  separation  of  which  from  the  body  is 
death.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  word  ni"i,  spirit,  is  the 
more  important  term.  In  the  New  Testament,  spirit, 
TTvevfia,  is  little  used  of  any  natural  element  in  man ;  it 


THE    SPIRIT    OF    GOD  193 

cliiody  refers  t(^  the  Divine  Spirit  coimiiimicated  to  men  in 
fellowship  with  Clnist. 

In  tlie  Old  Testament  the  word  nn  is  nsed  of  the  wind ; 
the  characteristics  of  tliis  are  inipalpahlcness  and  force  ; 
it  is  invisil)le,  hut  a  real  energy. 

Then  the  word  is  used  of  the  breath.  The  hreath  is 
tlie  sign  of  life  in  the  living  creature.  When  lie  no  more 
hreathes  he  is  dead — his  hreath  departs,  and  he  falls  into 
dust.  Man  is  a  heing  in  whose  nostrils  is  a  '  hreath ' — 
the  sign  of  the  feehlest  existence.  When  this  hreath  is  sent 
out  in  a  violent  way  it  implies  passion ;  hence  the  word  is 
used  for  anger,  fury.  So  even  God's  breath  is  spoken  of, 
and  His  wrath,  which  is  seen  in  His  nostrils  like  a  fiery 
smoke. 

Now,  here  we  meet  an  extension  of  the  use  of  the  term 
spirit,  common  in  all  languages,  the  various  steps  of  which 
need  to  be  distinctly  noticed,  though  it  is  dii!icult  to  keep 
them  separate.  There  are  three  steps:  (1)  the  n^i  is  the 
breath — the  sign  of  life  ;  (2)  it  becomes  not  merely  the 
sign  of  life,  but,  so  to  speak,  the  principle  of  vitality  itself ; 
and  (3)  this  principle  of  vitality  being  considered  the 
unseen  spiritual  element  in  man,  it  comes  to  mean  man's 
spirit.  Eeference  to  certain  passages  may  show  this  ascent 
of  three  steps.^ 

(1)  All  life,  whether  in  man,  or  in  the  lower  creatures, 
or  in  the  world,  is  an  effect  of  the  nn,  the  Spirit  of  God. 
God's  Spirit  is  merely  God  in  His  efficiency,  especially  as 
giving  life.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  hardly  considered  another 
distinct  from  Him ;  it  is  God  exercising  power,  communi- 
cating Himself,  or  operating.  This  power  may  be  simply 
vital  power,  physical  life ;  or  it  may  be  intellectual,  moral, 
or  religious  life.  These  are  all  communicated  by  the  Spirit 
or  nn  of  God.  This  Spirit  of  God  communicated  to  man 
gives  him  life.  Now,  though  this  n^i  or  Spirit  of  God 
be  properly  no  substance,  but   a  mere  power,  it  is  very 

1  Compare  what  has  been  said  above  on  the  subject  of  "The  Spirit  of 
God."  Some  of  the  points  developed  in  the  following  statements  are  referred 
to  there. — Ed. 

13 


194       THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD   TESTAMENT 

liard,  perl  laps  iiiipossiblc,  to  avoid  conceiving  it  in  some 
substantial  way,  or  to  escape  the  use  of  language  which 
seems  to  express  this.  But  we  must  guard  against  being 
misled  by  such  phraseology.  In  the  beginning  of  Genesis 
(ii.  7)  the  creation  of  man  is  set  forth  graphically,  and  in 
a  very  realistic  way :  "  The  Lord  God  made  man  out  of 
the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the 
breath  of  life ;  and  he  became  a  living  creature — nejjhcsh" 

The  passage  is  of  interest  in  various  ways :  first,  it 
distinguishes  between  man  and  the  lower  creatures.  The 
earth  and  waters  at  the  command  of  God  brought  forth 
the  other  creatures,  but  man's  formation  was  the  work- 
manship of  God's  own  hand.  Secondly,  man's  body  being 
formed,  God  breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life. 
The  source  of  life  does  not  belong  to  the  body,  life  is  not 
a  manifestation  of  organised  matter.  It  is  a  product  of 
God's  Spirit.  Thirdly,  man  thus  became  a  living  nephesh — 
the  soul  or  nephesh  lives.  Now,  here  we  are  on  the  ground 
of  a  representation  which  is  very  realistically  put.  Into 
the  still,  lifeless,  unbreathing  form  of  man  God  breathed  a 
breath,  and  straightway  the  lifeless  form  exhibited  the 
symptoms  of  life — breath  in  the  nostrils,  and  was  a  living 
creature.  God's  nn,  which  is  the  source  of  life,  is  here 
considered  God's  own  breath ;  the  passage  of  the  spirit 
into  man  is  represented  as  God's  breathing  it ;  and,  that 
being  in  man,  man  lived.  Now  all  that  seems  in  question 
here  is  just  the  giving  of  vitality  to  man.  There  seems 
no  allusion  to  man's  immaterial  being,  to  his  spiritual 
element.  It  is  a  picture  of  his  endowment  with  vitality. 
Vitality  is  communicated  by  God,  and  He  is  here  pictorially 
represented  as  communicating  it  by  breathing  into  man's 
nostrils  that  breath  which  is  the  sign  of  life.  The  anthropo- 
morphism of  the  author  is  very  strong.  He  represents 
God  Himself  as  having  a  breath  which  is  the  sign  or  prin- 
ciple of  life  in  Himself ;  and  this  He  breathed  into  man, 
and  it  became  the  same  in  him. 

Now,  this  vital  spirit,  coming  from  God,  but  now 
belonging  to  man,  not,  it  is  to  be  observed,  considered  as  a 


WITHDRAWAL    OF    THE    SPIRIT  199» 

spiritual  substance  in  man,  Imt  siiui)ly  as  a  vital  principle 
or  as  vitality,  is  called  in  Scripture  the  "  Sjiirit  of  (Jod," 
because  it  is  a  power  of  God  or  a  constant  elliciency  of 
His;  and  the  "  si)irit  of  man,"  because  belonging  to  man 
Hence  Job  says:  "The  spirit  (or  breath)  of  God  is  in  my 
nostrils "  (xxvii.  3),  parallel  to  the  other  clause :  "  ]\Iy 
breath  is  yet  whole  in  me."  And  Elihu  says:  "The  spirit 
of  God  hath  made  me,  and  tlic  breath  of  tlie  Almighty 
hatli  given  me  life  "  (xxxiii.  4).  And  again,  arguing  that 
the  creation  and  upholding  of  life  in  creatures  demonstrates 
the  unselfish  benevolence  of  God,  he  says :  "  If  God  should 
set  His  mind  ui)on  Himself — make  Himself  the  sole  object 
of  His  consideration  and  regard,  and  withdraw  unto  Him- 
self His  spirit  and  His  breath,  all  tiesh  shoidd  perish 
together,  and  return  again  into  dust"  (xxxiv.  14).  Again, 
Ps.  civ.  29:  "Thou  takest  away  their  nn,  they  die,  and 
return  to  their  dust.  Thou  sendest  forth  Thy  nn,  and  they 
are  created."  All  these  passages  are  realistic  ways  of 
describing  life  and  death  ;  the  one  is  caused  by  an  efflux 
of  God's  spirit,  which  is  represented  by  or  identified  with 
the  breath  in  the  nostrils,  the  sign  or  the  principle  of  life ; 
and  the  other,  death,  is  caused  by  God's  taking  away  His 
spirit,  the  previous  continual  sending  forth  of  which  was 
the  cause  of  life.  One  can  readily  perceive  how  two 
things  are  mixed  up  in  these  representations :  first,  the 
belief  that  all  life  is  communicated  by  God's  Spirit,  or  l)y 
God  who  acts  and  is  everywhere  present  as  spirit,  and  as 
such  is  the  giver  and  upholder  of  vitality  in  all  that  has 
life ;  and,  secondly,  a  tendency  to  represent  this  sensuously 
by  dwelling  upon  the  breath  in  man,  the  sign,  and  pre- 
sumably the  princii)le,  of  their  life. 

When  the  spirit  is  spoken  of  as  being  witlidrawn  ])y 
God  and  going  forth  from  man,  in  other  words,  wlien,  as 
we  say,  he  cxjnrcs  and  dies,  there  is  no  question  raised  as  to 
where  the  spirit  of  life  wliich  he  had  goes  to.  The  spirit 
of  life  is  not  a  su])stance,  it  is  the  mere  principle  of  vitality, 
as  we  say.  Tlie  (pujstion  did  not  occur,  wlien  the  s])irit  of 
"life  was  spoken  of  in  this  sense,  where  it  was  when  it  went 


196   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

out  or  was  ^vit]ldra^Y^.  It  really  bad  no  existence  as  any- 
tliing  in  itself.  It  is  not  considered  as  gathered  into  a  world 
of  spirits.  Neitlier  does  it  seem  regarded  as  a  part  of  the 
Divine  Spirit,  which  is  reabsorbed  into  the  Spirit  of  God. 
This  conception  would  be  nearer  the  truth.  If  one  wished 
a  figure,  he  might  imagine  it  thus  :  As  the  ocean  runs  up 
upon  the  shore  and  fills  every  cave  and  hollow  in  the 
rocks,  and  thus,  though  each  of  these  cavities  has  its  own 
fulness,  yet  this  fulness  is  not  separated  from  the  rest  of 
the  ocean,  but  is  only  the  universal  ocean,  communicating 
itself ;  so  God's  spirit  of  life  becomes  the  spirit  of  life  in 
all  tlesh,  yet  His  spirit  is  not  divided.  And  just  as  when 
the  ocean  retreats  the  caves  and  hollows  are  left  empty 
and  dry,  so  w4ien  God  withdraw^s  His  spirit  of  life  the 
living  creatures  fall  into  dust.  A  better  illustration, 
because  a  scriptural  one,  is  given  in  Ezek.  xxxvii.,  in  the 
vision  of  the  dry  bones :  "As  I  prophesied,  there  was  a 
voice,  and  the  bones  came  together,  bone  to  his  bone. 
And  I  beheld,  and,  lo,  there  were  sinews  upon  them,  and 
llesh  came  up,  and  skin  covered  them ;  but  there  was  no 
breath  in  them.  Then  said  He  unto  me.  Prophesy,  and 
say  unto  the  wind  (nn).  Come  from  the  four  winds,  0  breath 
(nn),  and  breathe  into  these  slain,  that  they  may  live.  So 
I  prophesied,  and  the  breath  (nn)  came  into  them,  and 
they  stood  up  upon  their  feet  an  exceeding  great  army.  .  .  . 
Behold,  I  will  open  your  graves,  0  My  people,  and  I  will 
put  My  nn  in  you,  and  ye  shall  live,  and  I  will  place  you 
in  your  own  land." 

(2)  All  the  preceding  illustrations  have  been  given  on 
the  plane  of  mere  life  or  vitality.  But  an  advance  is 
made  on  this  in  a  use  of  the  word  nn  whicli  is  common  to 
all  languages.  The  spirit  means  the  intellectual  or  mental 
element  in  man.  It  could  not  but  occur  to  men  that  the 
breath  was  not  the  life  or  living  principle  in  man  ;  there 
was  sometliing  unseen  which  was  the  source  or  seat  of 
Hfe  and  also  of  tliought.  Still  it  was  probably  tlie  breath 
that  suggested  this,  or  the  same  word  would  hardly  have 
been  used  for  both.     There  are  still  some  passages  where 


THE    OMENTAL    ELEMENT    IN    MAN  197 

the  clistiuetiou  between  tlie  breatli  aiul  tlie  imniaterial 
principle  or  mind  is  scarcely  maintained.  Tims  Elihii 
says:  "  Tliere  is  a  spirit  in  man,  and  tlie  breatli  of  the 
Almig-lity  givetli  them  nnderstanding- "  (xxxii.  8).  And 
while  in  earlier  books  the  qnestion  is  not  raised  as  to  what 
becomes  of  the  life-spirit  in  man  when  he  dies,  in  later 
books  this  spirit  is  s])oken  of  more  as  if  it  had  an  independent 
being  of  its  own.  That  is,  the  immaterial  element  in  man 
is  identified  with  the  spirit  of  life  or  principle  of  vitality  in 
him  :  "  Then  shall  the  dust  retnrn  to  the  earth  as  it  was, 
and  the  spirit  shall  retnrn  unto  God  who  gave  it  "  (Eccles. 
xii.  7).  And  in  another  passage  in  the  same  book  :  "  Who 
knoweth  the  spirit  of  man,  whether  it  goeth  upwards,  and 
the  spirit  of  the  beast  whether  it  goeth  downward  to  the 
earth  ? "  (iii.  21).  In  general,  however,  the  difference 
between  '  spirit '  as  mtality  and  '  spirit '  as  immaterial 
clement  in  man  is  pretty  well  preserved,  though  an  affinity 
between  the  two  usages  must  be  acknowledged. 

The  term  spirit  (ni"')  is  used  for  the  mental  element  in 
the  nature  of  man,  especially  in  three  aspects :  first,  when 
put  in  opposition  to  flesh ;  secondly,  when  considered  as 
drawing  its  origin  from  God,  when  He  is  thought  of  as  its 
source ;  and,  thircll//,  when  the  strength  or  weakness  in 
respect  of  vitality  of  man's  immaterial  nature  is  spoken  of. 
The  first  two  are  illustrated  by  such  passages  as  these: 
"  God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh  "  (Num.  xvi.  22,  xxvii.  16) ; 
"  In  whose  hand  is  the  soul  of  all  that  liveth,  and  the  spirit 
of  all  flesh  of  man"  (Job  xii.  10).  Examples  of  the  third 
are  numerous :  "  The  sj)irit  of  Jacob  their  father  revived  " 
(Gen.  xlv.  27);  "To  revive  the  spirit  of  the  humble"  (Isa. 
Ivii.  15);  "My  days  are  over,  my  spirit  is  extinguished" 
(Job  xvii.  1);  hence  the  spirit  "is  overwhelmed  and 
failetli"  (Ps.  cxliii.  4);  "  by  sorrow  of  heart  the  spirit  is 
broken"  (Pro v.  xv.  13);  "the  sacrifices  of  God  are  a 
broken  spirit"  (Ps.  li.  17);  and  this  other  passage,  "For  I 
will  not,  saith  the  Lord,  contend  for  ever,  neither  will  I 
be  always  wroth :  for  the  spirit  would  fail  before  me,  and 
the  breaths  which  I  have  made  "  (Isa.  Ivii.  1 6). 


198       THE   THEOLOGY    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

This  couuection  of  nil  with  the  idea  of  life,  and  con- 
sequently of  strength,  poivcr,  is  very  remarkable,  and  needs 
further  investigation.  It  seems,  however,  to  be  the 
foundation  for  two  very  interesting  extensions  of  the  use 
of  the  term  nn,  to  which  some  allusion  may  be  made. 

First,  as  vitality,  power,  energy  resided  in  the  spirit, 
the  term  ni"^  came  to  be  used  of  a  predominating  state  or 
direetion  of  the  mind,  that  which  when  it  is  temporary  we 
designate  a  mood  or  humour  or  frame  or  temper,  and  when 
natural  or  habitual,  a  disposition  or  character.  In  the 
former  sense  Hosea  speaks  of  "a  spirit  of  whoredoms" 
being  in  Israel  (iv.  12,  v.  4),  and  Isaiah  of  "a  spirit  of 
deep  sleep  being  poured  out  on  them"  (xxix.  10),  i.e.  of 
insensibility,  and  of  "  a  spirit  of  perverseness  "  being  in  the 
Egyptians  (xix.  14)  ;  and  in  the  same  sense,  perhaps,  another 
prophet  speaks  of  "  a  spirit  of  grace  and  supplications " 
(Zech.  xii.  10).  In  the  latter  sense,  that  of  a  prevailing 
disposition  or  character,  the  Old  Testament  speaks  of  those 
who  are  "  proud  in  spirit "  (Eccles.  vii.  8),  "  haughty  in 
spirit "  (Prov.  xvi.  18), "  hasty  in  spirit  "  (Eccles.  vii.  9) ;  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  of  a  "humble  spirit"  (Prov.  xvi.  19), 
of  a  "  patient  spirit "  (Eccles.  vii.  8),  a  "  faithful  spirit," 
and  the  like  (Prov.  xi.  13).  The  word  t^'Sp.  or  *  soul'  could 
hardly  have  been  used  in  any  of  these  examples. 

Secondly,  it  is  this  same  conception  of  power  or  energy 
or  fuller  life  which  is  expressed  when  it  is  said  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  is  given  to  men,  or  when  He  comes  tqjon  them 
and  7)10 ves  them.  It  is  said,  for  example,  in  reference  to 
Samson,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  hegan  to  move  him  at  times 
in  the  camp  at  Dan  (Judg.  xiii.  25);  that  the  Spirit  of 
God  came  upon  him,  and  he  rent  the  lion  as  he  would  a 
kid  (xiv.  6) — tlie  reference  being  to  tlie  great  display  of 
strength  which  he  put  forth.  Similarly,  it  is  said  of  Caleb 
that  the  "  Spirit  of  God  came  upon  him,  and  he  judged 
Israel,  and  went  out  to  war"  (iii.  10).  It  is  probable  that 
the  nomenclature  regarding  the  Spirit  coming  on  the  prophets 
originated  in  this  way.  All  exhibitions  of  power  or  energy, 
whether  bodily  or  mental,  are  ascribed  to  the  Spirit ;  and 


THE   TERM    ' SOUL  199 

the  excitation  which  characterised  prophecy  in  its  earlier 
stages  was  spoken  of  as  the  result  of  the  Spirit — as  Ezekiel 
still  speaks  of  the  "  hand  of  the  Lord "  heing  on  liini 
(iii.  14,  22,  viii.  1,  etc.).  As  prophecy  became  more  purely 
ethical,  and  threw  off  excitement  of  an  external  kind,  the 
internal  revelation  and  moral  elevation  continued  to  be 
ascribed  to  the  Spirit.  But  this  revelation  is  not  usually 
considered  to  be  mere  thought  communicated,  but  rather 
an  elevation  and  greater  power  of  mind,  which  may,  as  in 
Isa.  xi.  2,  ramify  into  many  directions  as  wisdom,  judicial 
discernment,  counsel,  executive,  and  fear  of  the  Lord. 

4.    The  term  '  SouU 

Less  needs  to  be  said  in  regard  to  the  soul  or  t^'D:. 
The  soul  as  well  as  the  spirit  is  used  to  designate  tlie  whole 
immaterial  part  of  man — though  with  certain  shades  of 
difference  in  the  conception.  That  the  two  are  identical 
upon  the  whole  appears  from  Job  vii.  11:  "I  will  speak 
in  the  anguish  of  my  t^^Dp ;  I  will  complain  in  the  bitterness 
of  my  C'^">."  Compare  also  iii.  20:"  Why  giveth  He  life 
to  the  bitter  of  ^'S^.  ?  "  When  God  "  breathed  into  man  the 
breath  of  life,"  man  became  a  "  living  ti'S?."  ^  creature 
that  has  life  is  t^'D3,  an  individual,  a  creature,  or  person. 
Even  a  dead  person  is  ^^\.  Hence  ti'S^.  being  the  actual 
living  creature  that  we  see,  with  its  many  varieties,  its 
form,  its  sensibilities,  and  the  like,  in  a  word,  the  living 
concrete  individual,  when  the  word  was  ai)plied  to  the 
immaterial  substratum  of  this  life,  the  soul,  the  same 
concrete  individual  character,  marked  by  sensibilities, 
desires,  affections,  still  adhered  to  it.  Therefore  to  the 
E*d;j  belongs  the  personality  of  the  individual.  The  '  soul ' 
longs,  pants,  desires,  melteth  for  heaviness,  fainteth  for 
God's  salvation,  abhorreth  dainty  meat,  loatlies,  is  satislied, 
is  bound  down,  cloaveth  to  the  dust,  quiets  itself  lilce  a 
weaned  child.  The  same  epithets  miglit  be  used  of  tlie  nn 
and  of  the  t^'S; ;  but  they  would  scarcely  have  the  same 
force.     Applied  to  the  nn  they  wuuld  describe  tlie  c()Hditi(jn 


200   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

more  objectively  as  a  condition  of  mental  power,  e.g.  a 
broken  spirit;  ap})lied  to  the  t:'DJ  tliey  would  describe  the 
condition  more  reilexively  as  one  felt  by  the  ^^l  or 
individual. 

Any  distinction  of  a  substantial  or  elemental  kind 
between  nn  and  t:'S)3  is  not  to  be  understood.  NeitJier  is 
the  n^"i  higher  than  the  t:'Dj,  or  more  allied  to  God.  But 
the  idea  of  n^'^  is  vitality,  strength,  imioer,  which  is  also  the 
idea  attached  to  the  nn  of  God ;  and  such  influences 
coming  from  God  are  influences  of  the  ni")^  and  are 
nn  in  man,  or  a  strengthening  of  nn  in  man,  because 
n^l  is  man's  nature  on  the  side  of  its  vitality,  power, 
prevailing  force,  and  the  like. 

The  t^5"  is  ^h®  bearer  of  the  individual  personality; 
but  it  is  not  modified  nn^  as  if  nn  concretised  were 
^'^}.     There  seems  no  such  idea  in  the  Old  Testament. 

As  it  has  or  is  the  personality,  most  importance 
attaches  to  the  t^'23  in  questions  of  immortality :  "  Thou 
wilt  not  leave  my  ^^  to  Sheol"  (Ps.  xvi.  10);  "He  hath 
brought  up  my  t^'D5  from  Sheol "  (Ps.  xxx.  3).  But  with 
this  we  shall  liave  to  deal  later. 

To  put  it  more  exactly,  the  case  is  this : 

(1)  All  influences  exerted  by  God  upon  man  are 
influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  God  exerting  influence 
is  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  kind  of  influence  which  God 
exerts  is  dynamical ;  as  we  might  say,  it  is  a  communica- 
tion of  life,  or  a  potentiation  of  life ;  or  of  strength,  power, 
in  some  region — particularly  in  the  etliical  and  religious 
spheres. 

(2)  As  God  communicates  power  as  nn,  so  the  soul  of 
man,  in  its  nature  as  nn^  receives  the  communication,  i.e. 
it  is  affected  with  new  power,  energy,  elevation ;  and  as 
exhibiting  power,  energy,  elevation,  the  soul  of  man  is  nn. 

(3)  This  does  not  imply  that  the  nil  in  man  is  different 
from  the  ^^P}.,  much  less  that  the  nn  is  higher  than  the 
L"D3  The  nn  is  the  ^'^l  as  possessing  or  showing  power, 
elevation,  etc.  For  we  have  seen  that  when  man's  mind 
moved  in  any  direction  with  a  strong  current,  whether  the 


SPIRIT    AND    SOUL  201 

ciTiTcnt  was  toniporaiy  or  permanent,  it  was  flcscril)ed  as 
a  nil  of  siieli  and  sucli  a  kind  ;  being  a  mood  or  temper  or 
mental  tendency  when  temporary,  and  being  a  cluiiacter  or 
disposition  when  permanent. 

(4)  Neitlier,  finally,  is  the  *^?3  the  nn  individnalised,  or 
the  nn  modilied  and  made  concrete  in  the  individual.  No 
doubt  the  individuality  or  personality  is  attributed  to  the 
^^l ;  hence  tJ'D:  often  means  *  a  person.'  And  also  the 
n^"^  is  spoken  of  more  abstractly.  But  the  nn  is  not  first 
general  and  impersonal,  and  then  impersonated  in  the  ^^^^. ; 
rather  the  ^'r^l  is  spoken  of  as  nn  when  exhibiting  deter- 
mination, indicating  power,  strength,  and  elevation ;  while 
as  ^^l  it  is  more  simply  the  individual.  Hence  t^'DJ  can  be 
used  even  of  a  dead  person.  Hence,  also,  two  concurrent 
ways  of  speaking  of  death :  the  nn  returns  to  God  who 
gave  it  (Eccles.  xii.  7)  ;  or  as  in  Job  :  "  If  God  should  gather 
to  Himself  His  spirit  and  His  breath,  all  flesh  would  perish 
together,  and  man  turn  into  his  dust"  (xxxiv.  14).  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  ^^;i  descends  into  Sheol.  If  ^'S;i  were 
nn  individualised,  it  is  evident  that  man  would  not  possess 
a  H''"'  at  all,  only  a  ^^X  But  the  fact  that  his  n^i  as  well 
as  his  t^*2^.  is  spoken  of,  implies  that  nn  and  t*'23  are  the 
same  things  under  different  aspects.  If  man's  tl'D^  were 
n^i  individualised,  then  the  taking  away  the  n^"i  w^ould  really 
leave  nothing  at  death ;  while,  in  fact,  the  t^'DJ  is  left,  and 
descends  into  S'leol.  In  our  modes  of  thought  we  operate 
with  substances,  but  the  Hebrew  mind  operates  rather  with 
abstract  conceptions  which  it  treats  and  speaks  of  as  things. 

Thus  it  is  saying  very  little  to  say  that  the  nn  '  returns 
to  God  w^ho  gave  it.'  For  that  may  mean  nothing  more  than 
that  the  vitality  which  flowed  from  God  is  witlidrawn  by 
God,  and  the  living  person  falls  into  weakness  and  death. 
It  is  altogether  another  thing  when  Psalmists  go  the 
length  of  saying  that  the  '3  is  taken  by  God,  or  that  He 
redeems  the  ':  from  Sheol.  Because  the  '3  is  the  person, 
while  the  'i  was  but  some  vital  energy,  the  witlidrawal  of 
which  by  God  was  deatli. 

The  main  points  reached,  therefore,  are  these : 


202   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

(a)  That  the  flesh  is  not  a  moral  term, — tlie  flesh  is  not 
regarded  as  the  source  of  sin, — and  is  not  a  term  for  sinful 
nature. 

(b)  The  spirit  of  man  and  the  soul  of  man  are  not 
different  things,  but  the  same  thing  under  different  aspects. 
*  Spirit '  connotes  energy,  power,  especially  vital  power  ;  and 
man's  inner  nature  in  such  aspects,  as  exhibiting  power, 
energy,  life  of  whatever  kind,  is  spoken  of  as  sjnrit  The 
same  way  of  speaking  prevails  in  regard  to  the  Spirit  of 
God.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  God  operating  powerfully, 
imparting  life,  communicating  influence.  Hence  such 
influences  of  God  when  communicated  to  man  affect  the 
spirit  of  man,  i.e.  man's  inner  nature,  in  those  aspects  in 
which  it  is  thought  of  as  spirit. 

(c)  The  soul,  on  the  other  hand,  is  the  seat  of  the 
sensibilities.  The  idea  of  '  spirit '  is  more  that  of  some- 
thing objective  and  impersonal ;  that  of  '  soul '  suggests 
what  is  reflexive  and  individual. 

(d)  Upon  the  whole,  taking  into  account  both  what  is 
stated  in  the  beginning  of  Genesis  and  what  appears  else- 
where, the  impression  left  on  us  is  that  Scripture  adds 
nothing  on  this  subject  of  Biblical  Psychology  to  what  is 
taught  us  by  common  sense.  Besides  the  general  doctrine 
that  human  nature  is  the  work  of  God's  hand,  it  gives 
special  prominence  to  the  fundamental  dualism  of  man's 
nature.  He  is  a  compound  of  matter  and  spirit.  The 
term  *  matter '  does  not  indeed  occur  in  Scripture,  but  the 
particular  matter  of  which  man's  body  is  composed  is  named 
dust.  And  man's  spirit  is  drawn  from  a  quite  different 
quarter.  Spirit  or  mind  is  so  far  from  being  the  result  of 
niaterial  organisation,  that  the  organisation  is  represented 
as  existing  without  spirit.  And  equally  independent  of 
the  spirit  is  the  material  organisation  in  its  origin.  How- 
ever popular  the  representation  may  be  considered  to  be, 
and  however  much  we  may  be  inclined  to  regard  the 
account  written,  so  to  speak,  jwst-eventum,  a  description  of 
man's  creation  conceived  from  the  point  of  view-  of  what 
man    appears    in   life   and    in   death,   it   is   impossible   to 


VARIOUS    ASPECTS    OF    SIN  203 

eliminate  from  the  account  tlio  ])olief  in  the  dualism  of 
human  nature  and  the  essential  independence  of  matter 
and  spirit,  the  two  elements  of  liis  nature. 

(e)  There  is  nothing  very  ditlicult  in  the  plnaseology 
employed  in  the  Old  Testament  for  the  parts  of  human 
nature.  The  material  part,  spoken  of  in  itself,  is  ""SV,  dust 
from  the  ground;  the  spiritual  part,  spoken  of  by  itself,  is 
n^f:  or  ni"i,  breath  or  sjurit.  When  united  to  the  spirit, 
dust  becomes  Jlesh,  i^'3,  which  may  be  defined  living,  or 
ensouled  matter ;  and  spirit  wlien  united  to  the  dust,  now 
flesh,  becomes  soul,  K'SjI^  which  may  be  called  incarnate 
spirit.  There  is  no  more  ground  for  Delitzsch's  opinion 
that  soul  is  a  tertium  qicid,  a  substance  distinct  from  spirit, 
although  of  the  same  essence,^  than  there  is  for  an  opinion 
that  ">^?  is  something  different  from  ">sy,  dnst.  The  body 
is  hardly  spoken  of  in  the  Old  Testament,  but  the  idea  of 
the  body  is  organised  flesh — flesh  under  a  special  form. 
Hence  the  form  being  inalienable,  the  body  will  rise  from 
the  dead  :  flesh  and  blood  shall  not  inlierit  tlie  kingdom  of 
God,  but  the  body  shall. 


VII.   THE  DOCTRINE  OF  MAN— SIN. 

1.  Sin — its  Nature  and  Extent. 

In  all  the  prophets  the  conception  or  doctrine  of  God, 
of  Jehovah  tlie  God  of  Israel,  is  tlie  primary  subject,  while 
the  idea  of  sin  is  secondary,  and  the  obverse,  so  to  speak, 
of  the  other  idea.  In  Amos,  whose  conception  of  Jehovah 
is  that  of  a  supreme  righteous  ruler  of  the  world  and 
men,  tlie  idea  of  sin  is  generally  unrighteousness,  injustixie. 
In  Hosea,  wJiose  idea  of  God  is  that  He  is  unchanging 
love,  sin  is  the  ahenation  of  the  heart  of  the  conununity 
from  Him ;  wliile  in  Isaiah,  who  conceives  Jehovah  as 
tlie  sovereign  Lord,  the  transcendent  Holy  One  of  Israel, 
the  sin  of  man  is  />?'?VZe  and   insensibility  to  the  majesty 

>  See  his  Biblical  I'sijcholuyT/,  Clark's  tr.  p.  113  ff. — Ed. 


204   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

of  Jehoviili,  who  is  a  holy  fire,  coiisimiiiig  all  that  is 
unclean.  In  general,  in  all  the  ju'ophets  who  speak  of 
the  sin  of  Israel,  tliat  sin  is  some  form  of  ungodliness,  some 
course  of  conduct,  whether  in  worship  or  in  life,  liaving  its 
source  in  false  conceptions  of  Jehovah.  Hosea  traces  all 
Israel's  evil  to  this :  there  is  no  knowledge  of  God  in  the 
land.  The  prophetic  statements  regarding  sin  are  mostly,  if 
not  always,  particular,  having  reference  to  the  conditions  of 
society  around  them,  and  to  Israel  the  people  of  God ;  they 
rarely  rise  to  the  expression  of  general  principles,  and  do 
not  make  abstract  statements  in  regard  to  sin  or  its  prin- 
ciple. It  is  not  of  mankind,  but  of  Israel  that  they  speak, 
though  they  say  of  Israel  what  other  parts  of  Scripture  say 
of  mankind.  Israel  had  a  period  of  innocency,  succeeded 
by  its  fall,  which  ended  in  death :  when  Israel  transgressed 
through  Baal  he  died. 

In  the  prophetic  period,  when,  of  course,  already  sin  in 
these  various  forms  had  arisen  and  all  the  various  con- 
ceptions of  it  had  been  formed,  and  nothing  new  appeared 
in  regard  to  it  except  perhaps  a  deeper  sense  of  it,  and 
to  some  extent,  as  society  became  more  complex,  a  more 
alarming  spread  and  self-manifestation  of  it,  all  statements 
that  we  find  regarding  it  will  be  altogether  particular. 
There  need  be  looked  for  no  generalisino-  of  it  or  its 
principle.  But  this  liolds  good  also  of  the  ^losaic  and 
even  of  the  pre-Mosaic  period  ;  and  indeed  in  all  the  Old 
Testament,  except  in  the  single  element  of  Christology, 
the  development  is  not  a  development  of  objective  truth 
so  much  as  of  subjective  realising  of  the  truth.  It  matters 
little,  therefore,  whether  we  carry  on  our  inquiry  in  the 
region  of  the  prophetic  literature  or  in  that  of  the  earlier 
Scriptures. 

On  the  question  of  sm,  just  as  on  other  questions,  we 
are  not  entitled  to  expect  in  tlie  Old  Testament  anything 
more  than  popular  laiiguage — not  that  of  science.  It  may 
be  made  a  question,  indeed,  whether  what  we  call  the 
language  of  conunon-sense,  especially  in  regard  to  moral 
subjects,  has  not  been  largely  formed  on  Scripture ;  whether 


GOOD   AND    EVIL  205 

our  habitual  ways  of  tliiiikiii;:;-  may  not  he,  larcjcly  due  to  its 
iDlluoucc  on  the  huiiuiii  mind  for  so  many  ages  ;  and  wlietlier 
thus  the  agreement  of  Scripture  statements  witli  what  we 
call  common-sense  and  men's  ordinary  ways  of  thinking 
be  not  a  coincidence  but  an  identity.  It  becomes  a 
problem,  indeed,  seeing  things  are  so,  how  far,  if  philosophy 
should  succeed  in  resolving  the  ordinary  ideas  of  life  into 
other  forms,  simpler  or  higher,  Scripture  may  be  capable 
of  this  transformation,  or  will  necessarily  undergo  it.  No 
doubt  there  is  very  inconsiderable  cause  for  disquietude. 
The  philosophers  have  not  yet  made  much  way  in  this  pro- 
cess of  resolving  our  ideas  into  other  forms,  each  generation 
being  fully  occupied  in  bringing  into  sight  the  failures  of 
its  predecessor.  In  any  case,  when  we  speak  of  the  in- 
fallibility of  Scripture,  we  must  remember  it  is  not  a 
scientific  or  philosophic  infallibility,  but  the  infallibility,  if 
I  may  say  so  again,  of  common-sense.  And,  however  it 
may  be  with  questions  of  that  kind,  what  we  do  find  in 
Scripture  corresponds,  particularly  in  all  tliat  concerns 
morals  and  life,  to  what  the  unscientific  mind  thinks 
and  feels. 

(1)  Thus,  to  begin  with,  Scripture  lays  down  at  its 
beginning  the  categories  of  good  and  evil :  "  God  saw 
everything  which  He  had  made,  and  behold  it  was  very 
good"  (Gen.  i.  31);  "It  is  not  good  that  the  man  should 
be  alone"  (Gen.  ii.  18).  There  is  good  and  there  is 
not  good.  Probably  in  such  passages  '  good  *  means  little 
more  than,  in  the  one,  answering  to  its  design,  and  in  the 
other,  conducive  to  his  vjell-heing.  *  Good  '  in  both  cases 
may  be  capable  of  being  further  resolved.  But  here  at 
least  is  a  general  idea  embracing  particulars  under  it. 
Opposite  to  good,  Scripture  places  the  category  of  '  evil.' 
The  two  are  so  irreconcilable  that  they  are  named  as  the 
two  poles  of  human  thought  and  experience :  "  Ye  shall 
be  as  God,  knowing  good  and  evil "  (Gen.  ii.  5).  Tlie 
existence  of  Elohim  Himself  is  bounded  by  these  two 
walls.  And  so  radical  is  the  distinction,  that  the  ])rophet 
Isaiah   (v.    20)   denounces   as   sunk    to    the  last   stage   of 


206   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENI^ 

perversity  those  wlio  in  his  age  confounded  the  two: 
"  Woe  unto  thcni  that  call  evil  good,  and  good  evil ;  that 
put  darkness  for  light,  and  light  for  darkness ;  that  put 
bitter  for  sweet,  and  sweet  for  bitter ! " — although  even 
those  did  not  question  the  distinction,  but  only  inverted 
the  things,  saying  as  another  said,  "  Evil,  be  thou  my 
good ! " 

(2)  This  distinction  then  existing,  we  may  inquire 
whether  in  the  terms  employed  to  express  it  there  be  any- 
thing that  suggests  what  the  principle  or  essence  of  good  or 
evil  is.  This  is  perhaps  hardly  to  be  expected.  We  shall 
find  abundance  of  statements  to  the  effect  that  particular 
things  are  good  and  particular  things  evil ;  but  probably 
nothing  more  than  popular  or  figurative  expressions  for 
good  and  evil  in  themselves.  Naturally,  we  need  not  look 
for  any  support  for  theories  regarding  evil  which  have 
sometimes  been  broached,  as  that  evil  is  defect  of  being,  as 
if  omne  esse  were  homim,  and  non-esse  were  equivalent  to 
malum  \  or  that  evil  is  the  imperfection  inherent  in  the 
finite  existence,  and  eliminated  only  by  the  passage  of  the 
finite  into  the  infinite ;  or  that  it  is,  if  not  identical  with 
that  imperfection  which  is  synonymous  with  the  finite,  a 
necessary  antithesis  in  thought  and  life  looking  to  the 
development  of  the  creature,  an  obstacle  to  be  overcome,  a 
drag  to  call  out  the  energy  of  vitahty,  a  resistance  to  develop 
strength  of  will,  an  impulse  to  move  it,  and  thus  a  factitious 
but  designed  element  in  the  universe.  Thus,  though  called 
an  evil,  and  necessarily  so  thought  of  (otherwise  it  would 
be  inoperative),  it  becomes  in  reality  a  good,  or  at  least 
the  means  to  good,  and  in  itself  nothing.  Such  reflections 
naturally  do  not  occur  in  Scripture.  But  Scripture  uses 
terms  of  a  different  kind,  which  do  add  something  to  our 
knowledi^e. 

The  Old  Testament  has  a  variety  of  terms  for  moral 
evil  which,  though  they  are  figurative,  tell  us  something  of 
how  its  nature  was  conceived.  There  is  no  language  that 
in  ethical  things  has  a  richer  vocabulary  than  the  Hebrew. 
Its  terms  are  all  heaped  together  in  certain  passages,  such 


DIFFERENT   TERMS    FOR    SIN  207 

as  Ps.  xxxii.  and  li.  God  spake  to  Caiii,w]ien  he  was  aiiL,n-y 
because  of  tlie  rejection  of  ] lis  sacrifice,  saying :  "If  tliou 
doest  well,  hast  thou  not  the  pre-eminence  ?  and  if  thou 
doest  not  well,  sin  (DNt^n)  crouchetli  at  the  door"  (Gen. 
iv.  7).  Here  sin  is  named  for  the  hrst  time,  and  ])er- 
sonitied  as  a  wild  beast  crouching  at  the  door,  and  ready 
to  spring  upon  the  man  who  gave  any  inlet  to  it.  The 
word  ^^97'  ^^^^^  ^^^^  corresponding  (heek  word  afidprduco, 
means  to  miss,  as  the  mark  by  a  slinger,  the  way  l)y  a 
traveller,  and  even  to  find  wantiutj  in  enumerating.  There 
is  the  idea  of  a  goal  not  reached,  a  mark  not  struck. 
Again,  Cain,  when  in  despair  he  surveys  his  fate  under 
the  curse  of  his  hasty  murder,  cries  out :  "  My  sin  i^'^)'^.)  is 
greater  than  can  be  borne"  (iv.  13).  The  root  of  Avon  is 
H'ly,  to  2)C7n'crt  or  make  crooked.  Evil  is  that  which  is  not 
straight,  or,  as  we  say,  right.  There  are  several  related 
ideas  borrowed  from  the  properties  of  matter  and  used 
for  good,  such  as  Pl>*,  rir/Jit,  in  the  sense  of  linear  straight- 
ness ;  '^'^*\  uj^rightncss,  as  I  think,  in  the  sense  of  superficial 
smoothness ;  with  their  antitheses  as  expressions  of  evil. 
And,  of  course,  there  are  many  similar  ideas  and  antitheses ; 
but  they  are  all  popular,  and  such  as  are  the  common 
property  of  mankind,  as  siocct  and  hitter,  clean  and  unclean, 
light  and  darkness,  etc.  The  commonest  of  all  words  for 
evil,  Vl,  perhaps  expresses  properly  the  violence  of  breaking, 
or  the  noise  of  it. 

It  may  be  admitted  that  something  is  gained  by  these 
terms.  Sin  is  of  the  nature  of  failing  to  reach  a  mark ; 
it  is  of  the  nature  of  what  is  crooked  compared  with 
what  is  straii^ht ;  of  the  nature  of  what  is  uneven  con- 
trasted  with  what  is  smooth  ;  of  the  nature  of  what  is 
unclean  compared  with  what  is  clean,  and  so  on.  The 
physical  ideas  are  transferred  to  the  moral  sphere.  There 
underlies  all  such  transferences,  of  course,  also  the  idea 
that  that  which  hits  the  mark  and  does  not  fail  is 
straight  and  not  crooked,  is  clean  and  not  unclean,  is  in 
that  outer  physical  sphere  '  good '  and  its  opposite  '  bad/ 
'  Good '  in  this  physical  sphere  might  perhaps  be  resolv- 


208        THE    TTTEOLOaY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

al)le  into  '  convenient/  '  pleasant,'  and  suchlike ;  but  it 
would  not  follow  that  '  good '  in  tlie  moral  sphere,  though 
it  niiglit  l)e  resolval)le  also  into  other  forms,  was  resolvable 
into  these  same  forms  *  convenient,'  '  pleasant,'  and  the 
like.  It  is,  of  course,  an  old  question  whether  we  can  ob- 
serve in  these  physical  expressions  the  genesis  of  tlie  ideas 
of  good  and  evil,  or  whether  what  we  see  is  the  expression 
in  various  forms  of  an  antithesis  inherent  in  the  mind,  and 
merely  clothing  itself  in  these  material  forms.  But  such 
questions  as  these  belong  to  the  general  theory  of  morals. 
They  are  hardly  raised  by  anything  in  the  Old  Testament. 
Wliat  Scripture  exhibits  to  us  is  this  :  a  national  con- 
sciousness, or  at  least  a  consciousness  in  the  highest  minds 
in  the  nation,  filled  with  moral  conceptions  and  sentiments 
of  the  strongest  and  most  pronounced  description.  These 
conceptions  and  feelings  are  in  lively  operation.  They 
exist,  and  conduct  is  estimated  by  the  public  teachers 
according  to  them.  These  moral  conceptions  and  senti- 
ments are  neither  in  the  process  of  formation — the  national 
mind  had  long  advanced  beyond  such  a  moral  stage ;  nor 
are  they  yet  in  process  of  analysis  or  decomposition,  as 
among  ourselves  at  present — the  national  mind  had  not 
proceeded  to  any  such  state  of  reflection. 

Tw^o  results  follow  from  the  use  of  the  terms  referred 
to :  first,  the  strong,  accountable  antitheses  before  re- 
marked ;  and,  second,  something  in  the  two  sets  of  things 
representing  good  and  evil  that  shows  not  only  that  the 
things  are  ditfcrent,  but  that  they  differ  with  a  difference 
that  is  essential  and  universal,  and  that  there  is  some  eftbrt 
made  l)y  the  mind  to  conceive  good  and  evil  as  such. 

The  question,  however,  remains,  whether  in  these 
modes  of  speech  we  have  the  genesis  of  the  ideas  of  good 
and  evil,  or  only  the  expressions  in  various  forms  of  an 
antithesis  inherent  in  the  mind,  and  merely  clothing  itself 
in  these  material  forms.  In  the  physical  sphere  had  might 
be  resolved  hito  unfit  for  tlie  purpose  desired,  but  had  in 
the  moral  might  not  l)e  so  resolvable.  In  the  physical 
sphere   the  thing  is   had  because  it   is  crooked.      In  the 


ETHICAL    VOCABULARY  209 

moral  ypliero  is  it  not  named  crooked  because  it  is  had  ? 
Probably  tliere  is  a  circle  out  of  whicli  tbere  is  no  escaping. 
])iit  at  least  tliere  is  in  sucli  classes  of  words,  as  we  liave 
said,  the  evidence  of  a  strong  distinction  and  a  strong 
effort  to  render  it  into  external  ex|)ression.  And  in  any 
case  the  ori(jin  or  genesis  of  sncli  moral  distinctions  lies  far 
beliind  Scripture.  The  ideas  are  formed  and  in  full  o})era- 
tion  l(»ng  ere  any  part  of  it  was  written. 

From  the  fact  tliat  Scripture  is  always  dealing  with 
actual  life  and  presenting  rules  for  conduct  or  passing  judg- 
ment npon  it,  no  such  thing  as  a  definition  of  the  nature  of 
evil  is  to  be  expected.  Wliat  we  find  is  concrete  designa- 
tions of  actual  evil  in  various  splieres.  To  this  evil  there 
is  always  something  opposite  in  tlie  particular  sphere  which 
is  good  or  right,  although  tliis  is  often  not  expressed,  but 
assumed  as  lying  in  the  connnon  mind.  Scripture  simply 
exhibits  a  consciousness  in  the  nation  filled  with  moral 
conceptions  and  sentiments,  as  we  have  said,  which  are 
in  operation,  but  are  not  themselves  ever  subjected  to 
analysis. 

But  the  Old  Testament  is  uncommonly  rich  in  its 
ethical  vocabulary.  For  example,  in  the  sphere  of  the 
Wisdom,  and  opposed  to  it,  there  is  a  rich  gradation  of 
stages  of  evil.  There  is  the  ''^3,  the  siinjde,  the  natural 
man,  undeveloped  almost  in  either  direction  ;  still  without 
fixed  principles  of  any  kind,  but  with  a  natural  inclination 
to  evil,  which  may  be  easily  w^orked  upon  so  as  to  seduce 
him. 

Next  to  that  is  the  ''"'03,  the  man  who  is  sensuous 
rather  than  sensual,  fieshly  in  the  milder  sense — one  still 
capable  of  good,  though  more  naturally,  from  his  disposi- 
tions, drawn  to  evil. 

Tlien  there  is  the  fool  who  is  ratlier  negatively  than 
positively  evil,  ^2  "^pn,  '  destitute  of  mind,'  who,  from  want 
of  understanding  rather  than  a  sensuous  propensity,  be- 
comes the  victim  of  sin.  In  Jolj  (ix'.  12)  this  man  is  called 
a  holloio  man  (^^^3  '«).  This  [)erson  is  ratlier  defective  in 
intellect,  and  is  thus  led  to  pass  unwise  and  precipitate 


210       THE  THEOLOGY   OF   THE   OLD   TIi:STAMENT 

judgments  on  providence,  and  in  general  on  things  above 
him.      So  he  runs  into  impiety. 

Then,  further  advanced  is  the  fool  actual  and  outright 
(^^JJ),  or  the  ungodly  man — i.e.  the  person  who  moves  in  a 
region  altogether  outside  of  the  Wisdom,  which  embraces 
not  only  intellectual  truth,  but  religious  reverence. 

And,  last  of  all,  there  is  the  scorner  (Iv),  the  speculat- 
ively wicked,  who  makes  his  ungodliness  and  folly  matter 
of  j'cliection,  and  consciously  accepts  it  and  adlieres  to  it. 

Again,  in  another  region,  that  of  truth,  evil  is  falsehood, 
3T3,  or  vanity,  ^1^',  what  has  no  reality  in  it ;  or  it  is  a  lie 
in  the  concrete,  "^p*^-. 

In  the  region  of  social  morals  and  brotheiiy  kindness 
evil  is  generally  expressed  by  the  word  Dnn  violence,  i.e. 
injurious  conduct ;  and  a  higher  stage  is  "I'tr. 

Again,  in  the  region  of  theocratic  holiness  evil  is  what 
is  unclean,  N^ptp^  'profane,  bin,  etc. 

There  are  certain  other  words  which  express  a  some- 
what different  conception ;  for  example,  the  word  T^'B, 
usually  translated  transgress.  Tliis  is  a  mistranslation. 
The  word  rather  means  to  secccle  from,  deficcre,  to  reljel 
against,  and  suggests  a  conception  of  sin  which  is  of  im- 
portance. It  describes  sin  as  a  personal,  voluntary  act. 
It  also  implies  something  rebelled  against,  something  wdiich 
is  of  the  nature  of  a  superior  or  an  authority.  And,  further, 
it  implies  the  withdrawal  of  one's  self  by  an  act  of  self- 
assertion  from  under  this  superior  or  authority.  The 
particular  authority  is  not  stated,  for  all  these  terms  are 
general ;  but  the  emphasis  is  laid  upon  the  self-determina- 
tion of  the  person,  and  his  conse(}uent  witlidraw^al  from 
the  authority.  The  word  could  not  be  used  of  the  with- 
drawal of  an  equal  from  co-operation  with  another  equal. 
It  is  said  that  Israel  '  rebelled  against '  the  house  of  David 
(1  Kings  xii.  19).  Again  Jehovah  says  :  "  I  have  nourished 
and  brought  up  children,  and  they  have  rebelled  against 
Me "  (Isa.  i.  2) ;  and  frequently  in  this  sense. 

Now  thcoO  words  suggest  two  lines  on  wiiich  men 
thought   of   what  we   call   sin.      In   the    one  case  it  was 


SIN   AS    UNRIGHTEOUSNESS  211 

failure  to  hit,  or  to  coiTcspoiid  to  ;ui  ol)jcctivc  standard  ;  in 
the  other  it  was  an  attitude  taken  hy  a  person  in  reference 
to  another  person  wlio  was  his  sui)erior.  In  the  former 
case  '  sill '  was  the  opposite  of  rigliteousness.  liighteous- 
ness  (P1>')  is  conformity  to  a  standard.  The  man  is 
righteous  in  any  sphere  of  conduct  or  phice,  when  his 
action  or  mind  corresponds  to  the  acknowledged  standard 
in  that  sphere.  The  standards  may,  of  course,  he  very 
various,  differing  in  different  spheres.  In  common  Hfe  the 
standard  ^  may  be  what  is  called  custom,  whether  moral,  or 
social,  or  consuetudinary  law,  which,  as  almost  the  only  law 
in  the  East,  is  very  strong.  Or  in  a  higher  region,  that  of 
the  Covenant,  the  standard  may  be  the  general  and  under- 
stood requirements  of  this  covenant  relation.  Or  in  tlie 
widest  sphere,  that  of  general  morals,  the  standard  is  tlie 
moral  law,  which  all  men  carry  in  a  more  or  less  perfect 
form  written  on  their  minds.  Usually  the  standard  is 
perfectly  well  understood,  and  righteousness  is  conduct  or 
thought  corresponding  to  it,  and  sin  is  failure  to  conform 
to  it.  So  in  this  sense  God  is  called  righteous  when  He 
acts  in  a  way  corresponding  to  the  covenant  relation.  This 
relation  would  lead  Him  to  forgive  and  save  His  people ; 
hence  He  is  a  righteous  God  and  a  Saviour,  the  two 
meaning  very  much   the  same  thing. 

No  doubt  the  breach  of  the  covenant  by  tlie  people 
released  God,  so  to  speak,  from  obligations  of  a  covenant 
kind ;  and  this  caused  the  prophets  to  move  a  step  further, 
going  behind  the  historical  covenant,  and  falling  back  on 
the  nature  of  God  which  prompted  Him  to  form  the 
covenant.  And  His  own  nature  becomes  the  standard  of 
His  action.      What  might  be  called  the  tone  or  disposition 

^  While  the  idea  of  righteous  or  right  seems  to  imply  a  standard,  it  is 
doubtful  whether,  when  moral  judgments  are  passed,  there  is  in  general  any 
reference  in  the  mind  to  a  standard.  Tiic  mind  passes  judgment  now  from 
its  own  standard  ;  it  has  attained  a  condition,  a  way  of  thinking  and  feeling 
now  haliitual,  from  which,  without  any  reference  to  an  external  standaid,  it 
passes  judgment  and  calls  a  thing  right  or  wnmg.  That  this  condition  of 
mind  may  have  resulted  from  external  teaching  may  he  true  ;  hut  this  lies 
further  back  now  when  in  Scripture  we  lind  men  passing  moral  verdicts. 


212        THE    THEOLOOY    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

of  His  being  is  a  redemptive  disposition  towards  men ; 
for  in  creation  He  conteni]ilated  an  orderly  moral  world, 
purposing  the  eartli  to  be  inhabited,  and  not  subject  to  the 
devastations  caused  by  evil  in  men  or  due  to  the  cruelties 
and  perversities  of  idolatry.  And  He  becomes  righteous  in 
the  highest  sense  wlien  He  acts  according  to  this  inherent 
saving  disposition.  Kighteousness  becomes  the  action  corre- 
sponding to  the  nature  of  the  one  true  God. 

This  conception  of  sin  as  a  want  of  correspondence  with 
an  external  objective  standard  has  been  adopted  in  the 
doctrinal  books  of  the  Presbyterian  Churches  of  Scotland. 
There,  sin  is  defined  as  "any  want  of  conformity  unto,  or 
transgression  of,  the  law  of  God."  In  this  definition  the 
words  *  of  God '  must  be  very  strongly  emphasised  in  order 
to  keep  up  the  sense  of  relation  to  a  living  person ;  other- 
wise if  sin  be  thought  of  as  mere  breach  of  an  external 
law,  we  should  fall  into  mere  dead  Phariseeism.  It  may 
be  a  question,  indeed,  whether  the  words  *  the  will  of  God ' 
would  not  have  been  more  in  correspondence  with  the  idea 
of  Christianity  than  the  '  law '  of  God.  It  may  be  certain 
that  we  shall  never  be  able  to  dispense  with  the  idea  of 
laio,  but  it  is  scarcely  in  the  form  of  law  that  God  com- 
mends His  will  to  us  in  Christ.  His  will  comes  to  us  now 
not  under  the  one  complexion  of  legality,  but  coloured  with 
the  hues  of  all  the  motives  that  move  men  to  obedience. 
The  very  idea  of  Christianity  is  the  removal  of  the  con- 
ception of  legality,  the  mere  bare  uncoloured,  absolute 
command,  and  to  bring  the  whole  nature  of  God,  with  all 
that  is  in  it  fitted  to  move  us,  into  connection  with  all  in 
our  natures  that  is  likely  to  be  moved.  And  the  operation 
of  the  Spirit  on  the  mind  is  to  make  obedience  or  righteous- 
ness instinctive,  and  the  spontaneous  action  of  the  mind 
itself.  Perhaps  it  would  be  impossible  rightly  to  define 
sin.  Practically  the  will  of  God  is  a  sufficient  standard  ; 
that  is,  if  you  start  with  the  idea  of  a  standard  outside  of 
the  mind.  Although  in  point  of  fact  there  can  never  be 
any  disagreement  between  the  will  or  action  of  God  and 
that  wliich  is  riglit,  tlie  Old  Testiimcnt  touclies  occasionally 


SIN    AS    DISOBEDIENCE  213 

upon  a  more  g'enoriil  c()iico]»U(>ii,  ii>i|tlyinL,^  that  ri^^lit  has  a 
self -existence,  and  is  not  a  mere  creation  of  the  will  of 
God:  "Sliall  not  the  Judge  of  all  the  eavtli  do  right?" 
(Gen.  xviii.  25).  We  should  distinguisli  probably  between 
wrong  and  sin,  making  sin  the  action  in  its  reference  to 
God. 

And  this  is  tlie  Old  Testament  view  in  general:  sin 
has  reference  to  God  the  Person,  not  to  His  will  or  His 
law  as  formulated  externally.  And  in  this  view  the  term 
y*^'*s  is  a  more  accurate  definition  of  it  than  ^^^,  although 
the  latter  term  is  also  used  quite  connnonly  of  sinning 
against  a  person. 

The  prophets,  being  public  teachers,  occupy  themselves 
with  the  life  of  the  people.  And  the  standard  which  they 
apply  is  just,  as  a  rule,  the  covenant  relation,  i.e.  the 
Decalogue.  Hence  Israel's  sin  is  usually  of  two  kinds : 
either  formking  of  Jehovah,  God  of  Israel,  or  social  ivrong- 
doing  of  the  members  of  the  covenant  people  to  one 
another.  But  what  gives  its  meaning  to  all  they  say  is 
their  vivid  religious  conception  of  Jehovah  as  a  person  in 
immediate  relation  to  the  people.  Sin  is  not  a  want  of 
conformity  to  the  law  of  Jehovah,  so  much  as  a  defection 
from  Himself,  the  living  authority,  in  the  closest  relation 
to  them,  and  appealing  to  them  both  directly  by  His 
prophets  and  in  all  the  gracious  turning-points  of  their 
history.  The  prophets  speak  directly  from  Jehovah  ;  they 
appeal  little  to  external  law.  Even  external  law  was 
always  living ;  it  was  Jehovah  speaking.  And  this  con- 
sciousness of  Jehovah's  presence  made  all  sins  to  be  actions 
directly  done  against  Him.  So  it  is,  e.g.,  in  Joseph's 
exclamation,  "  How  then  can  I  do  this  great  wickedness, 
and  sin  against  God  ?  "  (Gen.  xxxix.  9).  And  the  Psalmist, 
although  confessing  wrong  against  his  fellow-men,  says: 
'  Against  Thee,  Thee  only,  have  I  sinned  "  (Ps.  li.  4). 

Tliis  idea  of  sin,  as  something  done  directly  against  a 
person,  naturally  led  to  a  deepening  of  the  conception  of 
it.  For  a  person  cannot  l;)e  ol)eyed  npart  from  some 
relation  to  liiiii  of  the  aUbctioiis.      And  as  the  party  obey- 


214   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

ing  was  the  people,  this  proper  relation  of  the  affections 
was  difficult  to  secure.  And  this  difficulty  led,  no  doubt, 
to  that  singular  habit  of  personifying  the  connnunity  which 
we  observe  in  Hosea  and  the  last  chapters  of  Isaiah.  The 
prophets  thus  created  out  of  the  community  an  ideal 
individual,  from  whom  they  demand  the  obedience  of 
affection;  and  they  so  manipulate  this  idea  as  to  reach  tlie 
profoundest  conceptions.  Yet,  perhaps,  so  long  as  the 
prophets  began  with  the  community  and  descended  from 
it  to  the  individual,  thinking  of  the  individual  only  as 
sharing  in  the  general  feelings  of  the  whole,  the  deepest 
idea,  whether  of  sin  or  of  righteousness,  could  not  be 
reached.  They  had  difficulty  in  reaching  a  true  ethical 
foundation  for  want  of  a  true  ethical  unit  to  start  with. 

It  was  naturally  the  progress  of  events  in  God's  pro- 
vidence that  opened  the  way  to  further  conceptions.  The 
actual  destruction  of  the  State  put  an  end,  for  the  time 
at  least,  to  the  relation  of  Jehovah  to  the  community ; 
the  connnunity  no  more  existed.  Yet  Jehovah  and  His 
purposes  of  grace  remained.  The  prophets  and  people 
were  thus  thrown  upon  the  future.  That  had  happened 
to  tliem  which  happened  to  the  disciples  afterwards,  and 
which  our  Lord  said  was  good  for  them :  "  It  is  expedient 
for  you  that  I  go  away "  (John  xvi.  7).  The  life  of 
prophets  and  people  became  on-e  of  faith  absolutely.  And 
hence  the  clarification  of  their  religious  ideas,  and  the 
religious  purity  and  spiritual  splendour  of  the  ideal  con- 
structions of  the  future  kingdom  of  Jehovah  wliich  are 
due  to  the  period  of  the  Exile.  The  destruction  of  the 
State  as  a  kingdom  of  God  made  religion  necessarily,  so 
far  as  it  was  real,  a  thing  of  the  individual  mind.  It 
had,  of  course,  been  tliis  really  at  all  times.  Yet  the 
kingdom  of  the  Lord  had  a  visible  form  before,  which 
now  was  lost.  And,  so  far  as  religion  lived,  it  lived  only 
in  the  indivichial  mind,  and  as  a  spiritual  thing;  for  in 
a  foreign  laud  external  service  of  Jehovah  was  impossible. 
The  Sal)l)ath,  as  the  token  of  Plis  covenant,  could  be  kept, 
and  was  the  more  tenaciously  clung  to.      The  Lord  could 


SIN    AND    THE    INDIVIDUAL  215 

be  served  in  mind;  and  Jeicniiali  cxlioris  ilic  ])C()])le  in 
Bal)}don  to  lead  ([uiet  and  peaecaMe  lives,  and  to  pray 
to  the  Lord  in  behalf  of  the  conn  try  tliat  sheltered  them. 
The  transition  to  a  spiritual  religion  was  in  point  of  fact 
effected. 

With  all  this,  however,  the  inextinguishal)le  hope 
remained  of  a  lieturn  and  a  reconstruction  of  Jehovah's 
kingdom  on  more  enduring  foundations.  The  history  of 
the  past  revealed  the  cause  of  former  failures.  It  was  due 
partly  just  to  the  nature  of  the  Old  Covenant,  which  was 
a  covenant  with  the  people  in  a  mass — with  them  as  a 
people.  Its  virtue  descended  down  to  the  individual  from 
the  whole.  But  now  this  splendid  fabric  was  shattered 
in  pieces,  and  its  only  enduring  elements,  the  individuals, 
lay  scattered  about.  It  was  an  imposing  idea,  that  of  the 
Old  Covenant,  the  idea  of  a  religious  State,  a  State  all  the 
functions  of  which  should  be  arteries  and  channels  for  con- 
veying religious  truth  and  expressing  service  of  God.  It 
is  an  ideal  which  has  attracted  men  in  all  ages,  and  an 
ideal  which  the  Old  Testament  never  gives  up — least  of  all 
such  prophets  as  Jeremiah  and  the  Second  Isaiah.  If 
these  prophets  differ  from  earlier  prophets,  it  is  not  in  their 
ideal,  but  in  the  way  necessary  to  reach  it.  The  true 
kingdom  of  God  cannot  be  established  by  a  lump  operation 
like  that  of  the  Exodus.  It  cannot  be  called  into  existence 
by  a  stroke  of  the  magician's  wand — even  if  the  wand  be 
in  the  hand  of  God.  For  it  consists  in  making  godly 
human  minds,  and  gathering  them  together  till  mankind  is 
gathered ;  and  human  minds  can  be  made  godly  only  by 
operations  that  correspond  to  the  nature  and  laws  of  the 
human  mind. 

Hence  tlie  prophets  of  this  age  set  themselves  to  re- 
construct on  opposite  principles  from  those  formerly  used. 
They  begin  with  the  individuals.  The  broken  fragments 
of  the  old  house  of  God  were  lying  all  about,  as  individual 
stones.  And  they  gather  these  up,  putting  them  together 
one  by  one :  "  I  will  take  you  one  of  a  city,  and  two  of 
a  tribe,  and  I  will  bring  you  to  Zion  "  (Jer.  iii.  14).     The 


216   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

need,  not  of  a  reformation,  but  of  a  fundamental  regenera- 
tion, is  clear  to  the  prophet :  "  Break  up  the  fallow 
ground,  and  sow  not  among  thorns.  Circumcise  your- 
selves to  the  Lord,  and  take  away  the  foreskins  of  your 
heart,  ye  men  of  Judah  and  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem " 
(iv.  3,  4),  And  conformable  to  this  fundamental  necessity 
is  Jeremiah's  conception  of  Jehovah's  work,  for  he  is  well 
aware  that  appeals  to  men  to  regenerate  themselves  are 
vain,  he  asks  :  "  Can  the  Ethiopian  change  his  skin,  or  the 
leopard  his  spots  ? "  (xiii.  23).  Therefore  the  Lord  Himself 
will  make  a  new  covenant.  He  "  will  put  His  law  in 
men's  inward  parts,  and  write  it  in  their  hearts ;  and  they 
shall  all  know  Him,  and  He  will  remember  their  sins  no 
more"  (xxxi.  33).  The  ethical  unit  becomes  the  individual 
mind,  and  sin  and  righteousness  become  matters  of  the 
relation  of  the  personal  mind  to  God. 

The  Exile  might  appear  to  us  the  greatest  disaster 
that  could  befall  the  kinodom  of  God.      Yet  it  no  doubt 

o 

helped  to  clarify  the  minds  of  the  people  in  regard  to  the 
religion  of  Jehovah,  enabling  them  to  see  that  it  did  not 
perish  though  its  external  form  came  to  nought.  And 
though  not  interfering  with  the  great  hope  of  a  community 
to  arise  in  the  future  as  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord,  yet  it 
permitted  and  caused  the  individual  to  feel  his  independence, 
and  to  understand  that  religion  was  a  thing  between  him 
and  God  immediately.  The  clear  recognition  and  expres- 
sion of  this  Christian  truth  was  greatly  helped  by  the 
destruction  of  the  State,  and  many  of  the  most  profound 
expressions  of  personal  religion  in  the  Psalter  very  probably 
are  not  anterior  to  this  period. 

It  is  not  necessary,  however,  to  say  very  much  of  the 
Old  Testament  doctrine  of  sin.  The  anthropology  of  the 
Old  Testament  is  a  reflection  of  its  theology:  the  sense 
or  thought  of  sin  corresponds  to  the  conception  and  fear 
of  Jehovah.  And  as  the  tliought  of  tlie  spirituality  and 
purity  of  Jehovah  rose,  so  did  the  sense  of  what  was 
required  of  man  to  correspond  to  Him  and  be  in  fellow- 
ship with  Him ;  and  therefore  the  sense  of  sin  deepened. 


SIN   AND   THE    RACE  217 

Conscqneiitly,  tlie  dovolopiHCiit  is  not  so  imicli  intclloctual 
or  iu  ideay,  as  in  a  toiidoiicy  to  iiiwardiioss,  to  look  less  at 
the  mere  external  actions  than  at  the  mind  of  the  aetor. 
But  the  Old  Testament  teaching  regarding  sin  does  not 
(lifter  from  that  of  the  New  Testament.  It  teaches,  first , 
that  all  individual  men  are  sinners.  Second,  the  sinful- 
ness of  each  individual  is  not  an  isolated  thing,  but  is  an 
instance  of  the  general  fact  that  mankind  is  sinful.  And, 
thirdly,  the  sin  of  man  can  be  taken  away  only  by  the 
forgiveness  of  Jehovah :  "  Who  is  a  God  like  unto  Thee, 
pardomng  ini(|uity  ? "  (IMic.  vii.  18).  This  forgiveness  is 
of  His  mercy,  and  in  the  latter  age  a  New  Covenant  will 
be  extended  to  all  His  people :  their  sins  He  will  re- 
member no  more.  He  will  be  their  God,  and  they  shall 
be  His  people.  As  to  the  first  point,  testimonies  need  not 
be  multiplied  :  "  If  Thou  shouldst  mark  iniquity,  who  could 
stand?"  (Ps.  cxxx.  3).  "Before  Thee  no  llesh  living  is 
righteous  "  (Ps.  cxliii.  2).  "  There  is  no  man  that  sinneth 
not"  (1  Kings  viii.  46). 

It  might  be  worth  while,  however,  to  look  for  a  moment 
at  the  second  point,  with  the  view  of  inquiring  how  far  the 
Old  Testament  goes  in  regard  to  the  sinfulness  of  mankind, 
and  the  connection  of  the  individual  with  the  race.  That 
large  numbers  of  mankind  may  be  taken  together  and  form 
a  unity  in  many  ways,  whether  for  action  on  their  own 
part  or  for  treatment  on  the  part  of  God,  is  manifest.  The 
human  race  is  not  a  number  of  atoms  having  no  connection  ; 
neither  to  our  eye,  at  least,  does  it  seem  a  fluid  pressing 
equally  in  all  directions,  and  conveying  impressions  received 
over  its  whole  mass.  It  is  very  probable  that  it  is  this, 
although  the  influence  communicated  cannot  be  traced  by 
us  beyond  a  certain  circle.  But  just  as  Achan's  sin 
affected,  in  God's  estimate,  the  whole  camp  of  Israel,  the 
sin  of  any  individual  may  seem  to  Him  to  affect  the  whole 
race  of  mankind. 

The  view  of  tlie  Scripture  writers  is  sometimes  not 
so  broad.  The  penitent  in  Ps.  li.  exclaims:  "Behold,  I 
was  shapen  in  iniquity,  and  in  sin  did  my  mother  eoneeivo 


218   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

nie."  Ilis  evil  was  so  far  at  least  hereditary.  The  propliet 
Isaiah  exclaiuied  :  "Woe  is  me!  for  I  am  undone;  for  I 
am  a  man  of  unclean  lii)S,  and  I  dwell  among  a  people 
of  unclean  lips  "  (chap.  vi.  5).  He  shared  in  the  sinfulness 
of  his  people.  And  not  to  stop  short  of  the  most  general, 
Job  asks  in  reference  to  mankind :  "  Can  a  clean  come  out 
of  an  unclean  ?  There  is  not  one "  (xiv.  4).  And  his 
opponent  Eliphaz  asks :  "  Shall  man  be  righteous  with 
God?  shall  man  be  pure  with  his  Maker?"  (chap.  iv.  17). 
So  the  Apostle  Paul  regards  all  sins  among  mankind  as 
but  the  development,  the  details,  of  the  original  TrapaTrrcofia 
of  Adam.  All  sin  is  one  sin  of  the  race.  The  unity  of 
the  race  is  a  consistent  doctrine  of  the  Old  Testament. 
It  was  Dixn,  man,  when  created  as  a  single  individual.  It 
spread  over  the  earth  and  was  still  D*ixn,  maii.  It  was 
"itJ^a  h^,  all  flesh,  that  had  corrupted  its  way  before  the  Flood. 
Mankind  is,  as  a  whole,  corrupt ;  and,  corresponding  to  this, 
each  individual  is  unclean.  Smaller  sections  of  it,  as 
families,  nations,  are  also  sinful,  and  he  that  is  born  in 
the  one,  or  belongs  to  the  other,  shares  the  sinfulness. 

As  we  have  seen,  the  Old  Testament  does  not  ascribe 
any  sinfulness  to  the  flesh.  It  often  ascribes  weakness 
and  feebleness  to  the  flesh,  i.e.  to  man  as  a  creature  of 
llesh,  and  deprecates  God's  rigid  judgment  of  man  for  this 
reason :  "  Man  tliat  is  born  of  woman  is  of  few  days,  and 
full  of  trouble :  .  .  .  and  dost  Thou  open  Thine  eyes  upon 
such  a  one,  and  bringest  me  into  judgment  with  Thee  ? " 
(Job  xiv.  1—3).  But  the  feebleness  is  not  directly  moral. 
Though  teaching  that  evil  is  inherited,  it  does  not  appear 
to  speculate  upon  a  condition  of  the  nature  of  the  in- 
dividual prior  to  his  own  voluntary  acts ;  though  it  seems 
occasionally  to  recognise  what  is  technically  called  habit, 
as  when  Jeremiah  says :  "  The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all 
things,  and  desperately  wicked  "  (xvii.  9).  It  has  not  yet 
a  general  doctrine  of  human  nature  distinct  from  the 
personal  will,  or  from  the  concrete  instance  of  the  nature 
as  it  appears  in  the  individual. 

Probably  the  Old  Testament  does  not  go  the  length 


QUESTION    OF    IMrUTATION  219 

of  oRc^Ang  any  rationale  of  tlic  fact  tliat  cacli  individual  is 
sinful,  beyond  connectin^i;-  liiiii  with  a  siut'id  whole.  The 
doctrine  of  iinindatioii  is  a  moral  rationale  ol"  the  sinful 
condition  of  the  individual  when  he  conies  into  existence, 
and  prior  to  his  own  acts.  And  certain  things  in  the  Old 
Testament  have  been  fixed  upon  as  snstaining  that  doctrine. 
It  is  doubtful,  however,  if  the  Old  Testament  offers  any- 
thing beyond  just  the  historical  facts  that  Adam  fell  from 
righteousness,  and  that  we  observe  his  descendants  univer- 
sally sinful,  as  it  is  said :  "  The  wickedness  of  mankind 
became  great  upon  the  earth"  (Gen.  vi.  5).  And  God 
repented  that  He  had  made  mankind ;  and  He  resolved 
to  destroy  mankind ;  and  then  He  determined  no  more 
to  destroy  mankind,  though  the  imagination  of  the  heart 
of  mankind  was  only  evil  from  its  youth.  Passages  like 
that  in  the  law :  "  visiting  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon 
the  children  unto  the  third  and  fourth  generation  of  them 
that  hate  Him "  (Ex.  xx.  5),  and  occurrences  like  the 
destruction  of  the  whole  dependents  and  family  of  Korah 
along  with  him  (Num.  xvi.),  are  usually  cited  as  analogies. 
They  seem,  however,  to  fail  just  at  the  point  where  the 
analogy  is  wanted.  They  afford  instances  of  persons, 
themselves  innocent  of  a  particular  sin,  suffering  from 
their  connection  with  the  person  guilty  of  the  sin.  But, 
of  course,  the  whole  life  of  mankind  is  full  of  instances 
of  this.  The  point  of  the  doctrine  of  imputation,  so  far 
as  it  is  a  moral  or  judicial  explanation  of  the  sinfulness 
of  all  individuals  of  mankind,  lies  in  the  idea  that  Adam 
was  the  legal  representative  of  all  the  individuals  of  the 
race,  each  of  whom,  therefore,  is  held  guilty  of  Adam's 
sin,  and  his  corrupt  nature  is  due  to  his  own  offence  of 
which  he  was  guilty  in  his  representative.  This  is  the 
moral  side.  The  individual's  physical  connection  with 
Adam  is  only  the  channel  through  which  this  moral  la\\ 
takes  effect.  It  is  pro]>al)le,  however,  that  the  Old  Testa- 
ment presents  merely  the  physictd  unity,  without  yet 
exhibiting  any  principle. 

The  question  is  of  interest  as  to  what  was  the  idea  in 


220   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

the  01(1  Testament  when  it  was  said  that  tlie  initjuities  of 
the  fathers  were  visited  u])(»ii  tlie  children,  or  that  the 
fathers  ate  sour  grapes,  aud  the  children's  teeth  are  set  on 
edge  (Jer.  xxxi.  29);  or  in  such  a  case  as  that  of  Korah 
and  his  children  and  dependents.  The  Old  Testament 
idea  does  not  appear  to  have  been  the  idea  of  re^we- 
sentation.  The  idea  of  representation  implies  that  the 
descendants  are  held  guilty  of  the  representative's  act. 
There  is  no  sign  of  this  idea.  The  conception  was  rather 
this.  The  father  or  head  was  alone  had  in  view.  The 
children  or  dependents  were  embraced  in  him ;  they  were 
his,  were  part  of  him.  When  the  chastisement  embraced 
them  it  was  only  in  order  completely  to  comprehend  him ; 
when  it  pursued  his  descendants,  it  was  really  still  pursuing 
him  in  his  descendants.  That  is,  as  yet  the  f.ather  or  head 
alone  was  thought  of,  the  place  or  right  of  the  children  or 
dependents  as  independent  individuals  was  not  adverted  to. 
In  sho.rt,  the  conception  was  really  the  same  kind  of  con- 
ception as  that  according  to  which  the  covenant  of  Jehovah 
was  with  the  nation  as  a  whole.  That  this  was  the  idea 
appears  from  a  passage  in  Job  xxi.  17—20.  Disputing 
with  his  friends,  who  maintained  that  a  man  was  always 
chastised  for  his  sins,  and  that  great  sufferings  were  proofs 
of  great  sins.  Job  drew  attention  to  the  fact  that  often- 
times the  sinner  escaped  all  punishment.  How  often  is 
the  candle  of  the  wicked  put  out  ?  Theie  is  no  such 
universal  law.  To  which  his  friends  replied  :  "  God  layeth 
up  his  iniquity  for  his  children."  If  he  escapes  himself,  his 
children  suffer.  To  which  Job  replies :  "  Let  his  own 
eyes  see  his  destruction  :  for  what  concern  has  he  in  his 
house  after  him  ? "  The  argument  of  both  parties  implies 
that  the  visitation  of  the  father's  sins  upon  the  children 
was  regarded  as  a  punishment  of  the  father.  And  the 
argument  of  Job  is  that  as  such  it  fails ;  the  father 
escapes,  for  he  has  no  concern  in  his  house  after  him,  and 
no  knowledge  of  it. 

The  argument  of  Job  does  not  lead  him   to   find   fault 
with   the   supposed   providential   law   on    the    score    of   its 


TEACHING    OF    EZEKIEL  221 

injustice;  lie  argues  that  it  is  no  ease  of  j)uiiis])ing  tlu! 
aetual  sinner.  It  is  at  once  |)ereeive(l  that  fIol)'s  argument 
implies  that  to  his  miiul  the  lather  and  the  children  are 
distinct, — the  children  are  independent  persons, — and  what 
touches  them  does  not  touch  the  father. 

Of  course,  the  proverb  referred  to  above  is  a  way  of 
expressing  the  idea  that  the  calamities  of  the  end  of  the 
State  and  the  Exile  were  due  to  the  sins  of  former 
generations — the  fathers,  perhaps  the  generation  under 
Manasseh.  In  the  prophets  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  how- 
ever, the  supposed  providential  law  is  repudiated  on 
accoimt  of  its  injustice.  Jeremiah  touches  the  question 
lightly,  saying  merely  that  the  law,  the  fathers  ate  sour 
grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set  on  edge,  shall  no 
more  prevail  in  the  new  dispensation:  he  that  eats  sour 
grapes,  his  own  teeth  shall  be  set  on  edge.  But  Ezekiel 
enters  into  the  question  fully.  He  sets  it  forth  in  every 
possible  form,  especially  in  chaps,  xiv.  and  xviii.,  of  which 
the  sum  is  this :  '  If  a  righteous  man  have  an  impenitent 
son,  the  son  will  not  be  saved  by  his  father's  righteousness : 
he  shall  surely  die.  And  if  a  sinful  father  beget  an  obedient 
son,  the  son  shall  not  die  for  his  father's  iniquity ;  he  shall 
as  surely  live  as  his  father  shall  die.  If  a  once  righteous 
man  turn  away  from  his  righteousness  .  .  .  his  righteousness 
shall  not  be  remembered ;  in  his  sin  that  he  has  sinned,  he 
shall  die.  And  again,  if  a  wicked  man  turn  away  from  his 
sins  and  do  that  which  is  right,  he  shall  live.  .  .  .  All  souls 
are  mine,  saith  the  Lord ;  as  the  soul  of  the  father,  so  also 
the  soul  of  the  son  is  mine :  the  soul  that  sinneth  it  shall 
die.  .  .  .  The  son  shall  not  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  father, 
neither  shall  the  father  bear  the  iniquity  of  the  son.  .  .  . 
Therefore  I  will  judge  you,  0  house  of  Israel,  every  man 
according  to  his  ways.' 

The  teaching  of  the  prophet  is  intended,  first  of  all,  to 
comfort  his  brethren  of  the  Exile.  They  thought  they 
were  under  the  pressure  of  an  iron  law,  suffering  for  the 
sins  of  their  fathers,  enduring  a  penalty  which  nnist  be 
exhausted,  whatever  their  own  state  of  mind  and  conduct 


222       THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

iiiiylit  1)0.  And  they  stood  in  despair  before  tliis  spectre 
of  an  ineveisil)le  destiny :  "  Our  transgressions  and  our 
sins  be  npon  us,  and  we  pine  away  in  them,  how  then 
should  we  Uve  ?  Say  unto  them,  As  I  live,  saith  tlie  Lord, 
I  have  no  pleasure  in  the  death  of  him  that  dieth  "  (Ezek. 
xxxiii.  10,  11).  But  the  prophet  takes  occasion  to  go  very 
much  further,  and  to  teach  the  freedom  and  the  respon- 
sibility immediately  to  God  of  the  individual — not  only  his 
freedom  from  all  consequences  of  the  actions  of  others,  but 
also  his  freedom  within  the  limits  of  his  own  life.  No 
man,  as  regards  his  relation  to  God,  is  the  victim  of  a 
destiny  outside  of  him  ;  and  no  man  is  the  victim  of  a 
destiny  created  by  his  own  past  life.  Before  God,  and  in 
relation  to  Him,  each  man  is  a  free  moral  agent,  at  liberty 
to  determine ;  and,  as  he  is  at  liberty  to  determine,  so  the 
duty  of  determining  lies  upon  him  and  cannot  be  shifted. 

This  is  all  the  doctrine  the  prophet  is  interested  in 
teaching.  Modern  writers  have  ridiculed  this  teaching  of 
Ezekiel,  as  if  he  imagined  that  human  life  was  not  a  con- 
tinuous thing,  but  could  be  cut  up  into  sections  having  no 
moral  dependence  on  one  another ;  and  that  God  treated  a 
man  just  according  to  the  particular  frame  in  which  He 
found  him  at  the  moment,  with  no  regard  to  his  past. 
But  this  hardly  does  the  prophet  justice.  To  understand 
him  we  must  look  at  his  circumstances,  the  ban  under 
which  the  people  were  lying,  due  to  the  past,  and  the 
former  conceptions  prevailing  among  the  people.  His 
teaching  is  part  of  the  new  sense  of  the  freedom  of  the 
individual,  and  the  worth  and  place  of  the  single  person, 
w^hich  was  due  to  this  age.  This  truth  is  a  general  one. 
We  know,  indeed,  how  near  external  circumstances  come 
towards  creating  a  destiny  for  many  men ;  and  we  also 
know  how  each  is  in  danger  of  forging  a  destiny  for  him- 
self in  the  future  by  his  life  in  the  past.  Yet  in  spite  of 
all  this  the  truth  which  the  propliet  was  interested  in 
teaching  remains  true — men  have  a  personal  relation  to 
God  which  is  not  conditioned  by  the  acts  of  others;  and 
there  is  a  personality  in  each  which  can  be  distinguished 


FORGIVENESS   AND   SINS   EFFECTS  223 

in  some  measure  from  his  own  nature ;  and  however  much 
his  past  may  infiucuce  his  nature,  and  even  liis  personalityj^^ 
yet   the  personaUty  can  take  up  a  new  position  towards 
God,  and  thus  gradually  overcome  even  the  evil  of  its  own 
nature. 

This  is  what  the  prophet  was  interested  in  teaching. 
It  is  too  true  that  no  man  can  sin  witliout  the  sin  reacting 
upon  his  nature,  leaving  an  imprint  upon  it,  and  in  some 
way  enfeebling  it.  And  thus  as  by  a  law  every  man  bears 
his  own  sin.  Yet  can  this  be  said  to  be  the  only  sense  in 
which  sin  might  have  to  be  borne  ?  Are  there  not  a 
multitude  of  other  ways  in  whicii  we  might  have  to  bear 
sin,  besides  this  reflex  influence  of  sin  on  the  nature  ?  And 
are  we  not,  when  forgiven  sin  by  God,  freed  from  having 
to  bear  it  in  these  other  ways  ? 

It  is  true  that  His  forgiveness  does  not  in  itself  free 
us  from  having  to  bear  it  in  this  reflex  way.  But  it  would 
perhaps  be  a  mistake  to  suppose  the  laws  of  mind  to  have 
the  same  kind  of  rigidity  as  physical  laws.  For  the  moral 
nature  is  of  such  a  sort  that  it  can  draw  in  evil  itself  into 
the  category  of  remedial  influences,  and  thus  our  very 
moral  enfeeblement  becomes  a  means  of  causing  us  to 
have  more  constant  recourse  to  the  strength  administered 
by  God.  St.  Paul  gloried  in  his  infirmity,  because  God's 
strength  was  made  perfect  in  his  weakness  (2  Cor.  xii.  9). 
And  so  even  with  another  inevitable  evil  consequence  of  sin, 
to  wit,  remorse  and  its  pain — the  moral  nature  is  capable 
of  drawing  that,  too,  in  among  thhigs  that  are  remedial,  just 
as  was  the  case  witli  St.  Paul's  remorse  that  he  persecuted 
the  Church  of  God.  This  sense  of  remorse  magnified  to 
him  the  mercy  of  God — "  that  in  me  })rimarily,  above  all 
others,  He  might  show  His  long-suifering  "  (1  Tim.  i.  16). 
And  in  other  ways.  So  that  even  the  effects  of  our  past 
evil  may  be  drawn  in  among  the  remedial  measures  that 
minister  to  onr  general  godliness. 

()f  course,  there  are  two  questions:  (1)  the  relation  of 
the  individual  personality  to  God — wijat  miglit  l>e  called 
the   spiritual   relation  ;   (2)   the   external   liist^ay  or   life   of 


224   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

the  intlividiial  poison.  Ezekiel  is  mainly  interested  in  the 
lirst.  But  he  may  not  yet  have  disentangled  the  two 
questions  from  one  anotlier.  The  jx)int  was  never  clearly 
understood  in  Israel.  It  was  felt  tliat  the  second  question 
must  always  be  resolved  in  terms  of  tlie  first — felicity  or 
adversity.  So  far  as  the  i)rophet  Ezekiel  is  concerned,  he 
is  concerned  mainly  with  the  spiritual  relation  of  tlie 
individual  to  God.  The  outer  relation  he  teaches  will 
correspond  to  this.  His  feeling  is  that  he  is  standing 
before  a  new  age,  when  the  spiritual  relation  will  realise 
itself  also  visibly ;  the  righteous  shall  '  live/  life  being 
that  wiiich  we  call  life  in  the  final  state. 

From  the  Old  Testament,  tlien,  so  much  can  be  estab- 
lished, namely : 

First,  that  the  human  race  is  in  God's  estimation  a 
unity — as  much  so  now  as  it  was  when  it  was  summed  up 
in  Adam,  wdiose  acts,  of  course,  were  the  acts  of  humanity. 

Second,  that  sin  is  as  much  a  unity  as  humanity,  and 
that  as  the  one  man  developed  into  millions,  the  one  sin 
multiplied  into  millions  of  sinful  acts  ;  but  the  Trapdirrw^a 
of  Adam  was  what  all  the  while  abounded.  Humanity  is 
one,  its  sin  is  one. 

Third,  that  thus  when  any  one  sins,  it  is  humanity  that 
sins  ;  it,  which  is  one,  propagates  its  one  sin.  But,  of  course, 
tJiat  does  not  take  away  from  the  other  truth  that  the 
individual  sinner  is  guilty  of  his  individual  act.  The 
individual  Adam  was  guilty  of  his  sin. 

Fourth,  the  sin  of  Adam  being  the  sin  of  the  race, 
the  displeasure  of  God  against  the  race  followed,  and  the 
penalty.  So  when  any  one  in  the  race  sins,  it  is  a  mani- 
festation of  the  sin  of  the  race,  and  will  be  chastised  upon 
the  race.  The  cliastisement  may  not  extend  over  all  the 
race,  but  only  perhaps  over  some  part,  i.e.  not  over  all  the 
individuals.  But  it  will  extend,  in  general,  over  many 
more  than  are  personally  guilty.  It  is  a  chastisement  of 
the  race.  The  persons  chastised  are  not  as  individuals 
held  guilty  (.'f  the  sinful  acts.  But  the  unity  which  we 
know  as  humanity  is  held  guilty  of  them.      The  act  was 


INHERITED    DEPRAVITY  225 

an  expression  of  tlio  .sin  of  tliu  world,  uiid  it  calls  down  a 
judgment  on  the  woilil. 

Fifth,  of  course,  the  person  who  conmntted  the  sin  is 
as  an  individual  guilty  of  the  sin,  and  tlie  judgment  wliich 
falls  on  him  falls  on  him  as  an  individual  sinner.  Jhit  is 
there  not  a  twofold  treatment  of  the  human  race,  a  treat- 
ment of  it  as  a  unity,  each  individual  l)eing  ])art  of  it  and 
acting  as  part,  and  therefore  for  the  whole,  and  the  con- 
sequences of  his  acts  falUng  ni)on  the  wdiole ;  and  a  treat- 
ment of  it  as  individuals,  when  the  individual  is  dealt  with 
for  himself  ? 

The  further  conclusion  to  which  the  passages  of  the 
Old  Testament  lead  us  are  these :  Jlrst,  that  what  is  speci- 
fically called  07'i(jmal  sin  is  taught  there  very  distinctly, 
i.e.  "  that  corruption  of  man's  whole  nature  which  is  com- 
monly  called  original  sin,"  and  that  it  is  also  taught  that 
this  sin  is  inherited ;  second,  that  no  explanation  is*  given 
in  the  Old  Testament  of  the  rationale  of  this  inherited 
corruption  beyond  the  assumption  that  the  race  is  a  unity, 
and  each  member  of  the  race  is  sinful  because  the  race 
is  sinful.  In  other  words,  in  conformity  with  the  Old 
Testament  point  of  view  the  individual  man  is  less  referred 
to  than  the  race. 

The  question,  What  is  the  explanation  of  an  individual 
corrupt  before  any  voluntary  act  of  his  own  ?  does  not  seem 
raised  in  the  Old  Testament.  When  raised,  as  it  has  very 
much  ])een,  various  answers  have  been  propounded  to  it. 
Some,  e.g.,  Julius  Miiller  in  his  work  on  The  Christian 
Doctrine  of  Sin,  have  had  recourse  to  a  pre-existent  state 
to  explain  it.  Miiller  feels  that  such  a  thing  needs  ex- 
planation ;  punishment  implies  antecedent  guilt.  This 
guilt  nnist  have  l)een  contracted  antecedently  to  this  life, 
for  the  punishment  is  seen  in  the  earliest  stages  of  the 
present  state  of  existence.  It  must  have  been  con- 
tracted, therefore,  he  thinks,  in  a  pi'evious  condition  of 
existence. 

Tlie  same  dilliculty  has  been  felt  by  all  tln'nkors.  And 
an  explanation  S(tuiewhat  similar    is   tlie   generally  accepted 


226   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

one  among  orthodox  theologians.  Miiller  teaches  an  actual 
pre-existence.  They  teach  a  legal  pre-existence  of  the 
individual — a  pre-existence  in  the  person  of  one  who 
represented  them,  and  for  whose  acts  they  are  responsible, 
and  the  consequences  of  whose  acts  they  each  bear.  I 
think  tliis  way  of  eoyplaining  the  difficulty  does  not  occur 
in  the  Old  Testament,  for  the  difficulty  does  not  seem  to 
occur  there.  There  is,  indeed,  very  much  in  the  way  of 
dealing  with  men  which  this  way  of  explanation  fastens 
upon  as  favourable  to  itself.  Yet  it  is  doubtful  if  there 
be  anything  really  favourable.  For  every  case  seems  to 
differ  just  in  the  point  where  it  ought  to  agree.  The  Old 
Testament  shows  innumerable  cases  of  men  who  suffer 
for  the  sins  of  others,  without,  however,  these  sins  being 
imputed  to  them  in  any  other  sense  than  this,  that  they 
do  suffer  for  them.  But  this  theory  explains  their  suffer- 
ing by  the  previous  imputation  of  the  guilt  of  the  sin. 
In  the  Old  Testament  the  imputation  of  sin  and  the 
suffering  of  its  consequences  are  tlie  same  thing — it  is 
nowhere  more  than  a  being  involved  in  the  consequences 
of  the  sin ;  in  this  theory  imputation  of  the  sin  is  distinct 
from  the  suffering  of  its  consequences,  antecedent  to  it,  and 
the  cause  of  it.  In  the  Old  Testament  the  explanation 
of  the  suffering  is  the  unity  of  man,  or  the  unity  of  a 
family,  or  the  unity  of  a  nation,  or,  at  least,  some  piece 
of  humanity  wiiich  is  an  organism ;  in  this  theory  the 
explanation  is  the  legal  representation  by  one  of  all  those 
individuals  who  suffer  on  account  of  him.  The  two 
theories  proceed  on  different  conceptions  of  humanity. 

I  do  not  know  that  the  Old  Testament  raises  the 
question  which  is  discussed  under  the  terms  Creationism 
and  Traducianism,  i.e.  the  question  whether  the  soul  of 
each  individual  be  a  work  directly  of  the  Divine  hand  or 
be  propagated  like  the  body.  But  the  answer  on  Old 
Testament  ground  would,  I  thiuk,  certainly  be  in  favour  of 
Traducianism, — although  tlie  Old  Testament  way  of  re- 
presenting all  results  as  innnodiate  etl'ects  of  the  Divine 
activity   miglit   cause  a  pln-aseolugy   distinctly   creational. 


QUESTION    OF    TRADUCIANISM  227 

But  such  a  phraseology  would  apply  to  tlio  body  as  well 
as  the  soul.  It  may  perhaps  ho  true  that  God  is  repre- 
sented as  the  Father  of  spirits  oftener  than  the  Creator 
directly  of  the  body ;  but  that  arises  from  the  greater 
similarity  of  the  spirit  to  God,  and  the  natural  referring 
of  it,  therefore,  immediately  to  llim.  But  unquestionably 
Scripture  represents  God  as  forming  the  body  directly,  e.g. 
in  Ps.  cxxxix.,  as  well  as  the  soul. 

And  if  the  general  inference  from  the  Old  Testament 
would  be  in  favour  of  Traducianism  tliere  are  some  special 
facts  tJiat  go  in  tlio  same  direction.  We  notice  three, 
namely : 

1.  This  very  doctrine  of  inherited  sin,  so  distinctly  an 
Old  Testament  doctrine. 

2.  The  kind  of  representation  employed  when  the 
creation  of  woman  is  described.  She  is  taken  out  of  man  ; 
there  was  no  breathing  into  her  nostrils  of  the  breath 
of  life :  in  body  and  soul  she  is  of  the  man.^ 

3.  The  way  of  looking  at  things  which  appears  in  the 
history  of  creation  in  general.  It  had  an  absolute  end 
in  man.  God  rested  from  all  His  works  which  He  had 
made  in  creation.  Henceforth  creative  activity  ceased. 
In  the  one  man  was  created  all  the  race — it  is  but  a 
development  of  him. 


2.    The  Consciousness  of  Sin. 

We  have  noticed  the  terms  expressing  the  idea  of  siii 
in  Israel.     Of  these  the  term  VpQ  perhaps  was  the  one 

*  It  is  certainly  to  be  expected  that  Scripture  Avill  not  stop  short  of 
supplying  some  rationale  of  the  fact  that  men  are  born  with  a  propensity  to 
depravity,  which  must  be  regarded  as  a  disability  and  evil  with  which  each 
is  alilicted,  and  of  which  there  must  be  some  explanation.  It  may  be  the 
case  that  the  Old  Testament  does  not  give  any  explanation  further  than 
insisting  upon  the  unity  of  the  racp,  and  indicating  that  men  receive  from 
their  parents  the  corrupt  nati;:e  they  possess,  and  that  this  process  of 
reception  mounts  up  to  Adam.  The  expectation  is  raised  that  Scripture 
subsequent  to  the  Old  Testament  will  analyse  this  unity  of  the  race,  and 
that  the  analysis  will  make  it  appear  not  to  be  a  physical  unity,  but  a 
moral  one. 


228   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

that  went  most  to  the  root  of  the  conception,  that  sin  was 
defection  from  God. 

The  prophets,  being  practical  teachers,  naturally  refer 
to  sin  as  it  shows  itself  in  the  life  of  the  people.  They 
liave  no  occasion  to  speculate  on  its  origin,  or  on  its  funda- 
mental idea.  They  regard  it  as  universal.  Even  Isaiah 
says  of  himself,  "  I  am  a  man  of  unclean  lips."  And  if  we 
observe  a  progress  in  their  ideas  of  it,  it  is  in  the  direction 
of  a  more  inward  view  of  it.  They  direct  attention  more 
to  the  state  of  mind  which  the  external  sinful  act  implies.^ 

It  was  less  easy  for  them,  dealing  with  the  community, 
to  reach  the  profoundest  thoughts  of  it.  In  Amos,  the  sins 
mentioned  are  chiefly  those  of  men  against  men.  But 
Hosea,  through  his  profound  personification  of  the  com- 
munity as  the  spouse  of  Jehovah,  is  enabled  to  exhibit  the 
state  of  the  heart  of  the  people,  its  alienation  from  the 
Lord.  No  prophet  has  anything  higher  to  say  than  what  he 
says,  either  on  tlie  side  of  Jehovah  or  on  that  of  the  people. 
For,  as  Jehovah's  mind  toward  the  community  is  that  of 
love,  the  mind  of  the  community  has  turned  away  from 
Him  in  alienation  of  affection  and  consequent  outward  sin. 
Here  it  is  no  more  external  acts  on  either  side  that  are 
thought  of  by  the  prophet.  It  is  the  relation  of  two  minds, 
mind  and  mind ;  love  on  Jehovah's  part,  and  alienation  of 
affection  on  tlie  part  of  the  community.  These  ideas  which 
Hosea  struck  run  more  or  less  through  all  the  prophets. 

In  Isaiah  w^e  look  for,  and,  of  course,  find,  an  inde- 
pendent view.  His  thought  of  God  is  not  that  of  Hosea, 
neither,  therefore,  is  his  idea  of  sin  the  same.  To  him 
Jehovah  is  the  Sovereign,  Kadosli,  the  transcendent  God, 
who,  however,  contradiction  as  it  may  seem,  is  the  Kcdosh 

^  It  is  probable  that  sins  of  ignorance  were  properly  such  offences  as 
were  inevitable,  owing  to  the  limitations  and  frailties  of  the  human  mind. 
The  idea  is  expressed  accurately  in  Ezek.  xlv.  20,  where  the  siu-otl'ering  is 
made  "for  every  one  that  erreth,  and  for  him  that  is  simple"— that  is,  for 
inadvertent  breaches  of  law  due  to  the  limitations  of  the  human  mind  in 
general,  or  to  the  natural  slowness  of  individuals.  But  it  was  necessary  in 
practice  to  extend  the  idea  over  some  oU'cuces  scarcely  coming  under  it 
originally. 


IDEA    OF    SIN    IN    DEUTERO-ISAIAH  229 

Yisrael,  the  lioly  One  of  Israel, — who,  as  the  Second  Isaiah 
expresses  it,  inhabits  eternity  and  dwells  "  in  the  high  and 
holy  place  with  him  also  that  is  of  a  contrite  and  humble 
spirit"  (Ivii.  15).  Corresponding  to  his  idea  of  God  is 
his  idea  of  sin  in  man.  This  idea  is  equally  inward  with 
that  of  Hosea,  but  it  has  another  complexion.  Sin  is 
yi'ide.  Hence  Jehovah  has  a  day  against  every  one  that 
is  proud  and  lofty — "  the  lofty  looks  of  man  shall  be 
humbled,  and  the  haughtiness  of  man  shall  be  bowed  down, 
and  the  Lord  alone  shall  be  exalted  in  that  day"  (ii.  11). 
He  has  nourished  and  brouglit  up  children,  and  they  have 
rebelled  against  Him  (chap.  i.).  It  is  but  another  aspect 
of  this  idea  when  he  calls  their  sin  want  of  faith :  "  If  ye 
will  not  believe,  ye  shall  not  be  established  "  (vii,  9).  And 
l)ut  another  aspect  of  it  still,  when  he  charges  the  people 
with  insensibility  to  the  Divine ;  people  whose  hearts  were 
'fat,'  and  their  ears  heavy,  and  their  eyes  'shut'  (vi.  10). 
Throughout  the  prophets,  sin  is  estimated  in  its  relation 
to  Jehovah,  and  each  prophet's  conception  of  it  varies  with 
his  conception  of  Jehovah.  Yet  thougli  it  was  difticult 
to  reach  so  inward  a  conception  of  sin,  when  the  com- 
munity was  the  moral  subject  or  unit,  it  is  evident  from 
these  expressions  of  Isaiah  and  Hosea  how  profoundly 
inward  their  ideas  were,  and  liow  far  from  true  it  is  to 
say  that  they  refer  only  to  external  acts,  and  take  no  note 
of  the  condition  of  the  mind  or  affections.  "  Tliey  draw 
near  unto  Me  witli  their  lips,  but  their  lieart  is  far  from 
Me"  (Isa.  xxix.  13). 

God  in  His  providence  broke  up  the  outward  form  of 
the  community.  It  ceased  to  be  the  kingdom  of  God. 
It  was  no  more  a  question  of  its  relation  as  a  community 
to  Jehovah,  and  of  external  conduct  as  a  community.  The 
factors  now  became  different.  They  were  Jehovah  and  the 
individuals.  The  national  existence  was  interrupted,  the 
national  service  in  a  foreign  land  was  impractical)le.  There 
was  nothing  now  between  the  single  personal  heart  and  the 
Lord.  It  may  even  seem  a  strong  thing  to  say,  but  this  evLMit, 
the  breaking  up  of  the  national  existence,  was  the  greatest 


230   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

step,  next  to  the  calling  of  Israel,  towards  Christianity. 
It  revolutionised  men's  conception  of  religion.  It  made 
it,  as  no  doubt  it  had  to  some  extent  been  always,  a  thing 
exclusively  personal.  No  doubt  the  idea  of  the  community 
remained  an  idea.  It  is  tliis  idea  that  plays  so  splendid  a 
role  in  tlie  second  half  of  Isaiah,  under  the  name  of  the 
Servant  of  the  Lord — the  idea,  which  was  not  merely  an 
idea,  but  had  a  nucleus  of  godly  individuals,  especially  in 
Babylon,  to  whieh  it  attached  itself ;  over  which,  if  I  can 
say  so,  it  hung  like  a  bright  canopy,  a  heavenly  mirage 
reflected  from  the  kernel  of  the  people  on  earth.  This 
ideal  Israel  could  not  die ;  so  far  from  dying,  it  possessed, 
in  Jehovah's  calling  of  it  and  holding  it  fast  by  the  right 
hand  of  His  righteousness,  a  vitality  which  should  yet  im- 
part life  to  all  the  scattered  fragments  of  the  people,  and 
reconstitute  them  as  out  of  the  grave  into  a  new  nation. 
But  ere  that  time  nothing  held  them  together  excej)t  their 
individual  faith. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  Jeremiah  stands,  who  despairs 
of  the  community  as  it  now  is,  as  all  the  prophets  do, 
but  who  looks  forv/ard  to  a  new  Church  of  God  made 
up  of  members,  gathered  together  one  to  one  by  an 
operation  of  Jehovah  with  each.  Hence  Jeremiah's  idea 
of  sin  is  not  only  national,  but  profoundly  personal : 
"  The  heart  is  deceitful  above  all  things,  and  desperately 
wicked "  (xvii.  9) ;  "  this  people  hath  a  revolting  and  a 
rebellious  heart"  (v.  23);  the  house  of  Israel  are  "un- 
circumcised  in  heart"  (ix.  26);  "I  will  give  them  a  heart 
to  know  Me  "  (xxiv.  7)  ;  "  Blessed  is  the  man  that  trusteth 
in  the  Lord  .  .  .  I,  the  Lord,  search  the  heart,  I  try  the 
reins  "  (xvii.  7,10);  "I  wdll  write  .  .  .  My  law  upon  their 
heart "  (xxxi.  33).  And  the  reconstruction  which  such  a 
prophet  looks  forward  to,  or  which  is  looked  forward  to  in 
the  second  half  of  Isaiah,  is,  so  far  as  its  moral  and  religious 
character  goes,  nothing  short  of,  and  nothing  else  than, 
Christianity.  These  prophets  expect  it  soon.  Tliey  couple 
it  witli  the  restoration  from  exile  ;  they  bring  it  down  upon 
a  condition   of  the   world   externally   resembling   that  in 


CONSCIOUSNESS   OF   SIN  231 

their  own  day.  We  have  to  distmgiiish  between  their 
religions  thouglits  theniselvoa  and  their  ideal  reconstructions 
of  tlie  external  world.  These  were  constructions  which, 
living  in  tliat  ancient  world,  they  had  to  make  ;  for  no 
other  materials  were  at  their  hand.  But  the  ideas  whicli 
they  expressed  through  their  great  fabrics  of  imagination 
abide,  the  inheritance  of  all  the  ages.  They  built  on  the 
true  foundation  gold,  silver,  precious  stones.  Time  wastes 
even  these  costly  but  earthly  fabrics,  and  we,  as  we  live  age 
after  age,  have  to  replace  them  with  materials  to  serve  our 
use,  whicli  shall  probably  decay  too,  and  future  generations 
will  have  to  body  out  the  eternal  ideas  in  other  materials. 
But  the  ideas  are  eternal. 

Here  we  see  that,  in  the  sphere  of  religion,  sin  is 
idolatry,  or  service  of  Jehovah  of  a  kind  that  profaned  His 
holy  name ;  that,  in  the  sphere  of  speech,  trutli  is  right- 
eousness, and  sin  falsehood ;  that,  in  the  sphere  of  civil  life, 
justice  is  righteousness,  and  sin  is  injustice^  want  of  con- 
sideration, also  evil  speaking,  and  much  else ;  and  that,  in 
the  sphere  of  the  mind  of  man,  sin  is  want  of  sincerity, 
either  towards  God  or  towards  men,  guile ;  purity,  the 
opposite  to  this,  being  purity  of  heart,  simplicity,  openness, 
genuineness.  The  Old  Testament  teaching  regarding  sin 
does  not  differ  from  the  teaching  in  the  New  Testament, 
though  probably  there  is  less  approach  towards  generalis- 
ing and  to  statement  in  the  form  of  categories.  The  Old 
Testament  is  so  entirely  of  a  practically  religious  nature, 
that  deductions  of  a  general  kind  are  not  quite  easy  to 
make. 

Perhaps  we  acquire  a  better  idea  of  the  consciousness 
of  sin  in  the  mind  of  Old  Testament  saints  from  some 
continuous  passages  than  by  any  induction  based  on 
individual  terms.  And  there  is  no  more  remarkable 
picture  of  the  consciousness  of  sin  in  Israel  than  that 
shown  in  Ps.  li.  The  tradition  preserved  in  the  heading 
of  the  Psalm  is  that  it  is  by  David.  Modern  writers  are 
inclined  to  bring  it  lower  down.  For  our  present  purpose 
this  question  is  not  of  imyoMuce.     We  learn  more  from 


6</' 


232       THE   THEOLOGY    OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

such  a  picture  of  the  feehngs  of  an  individual  mind 
in  rejj^ard  to  the  thous^hts  of  sin  in  Israel  than  we  could 
from  any  investigation  into  the  meaning  of  the  mere  terms 
by  which  sin  is  described.  My  impression  of  the  Psalm 
is  that  it  contains  only  a  single  prayer,  namely,  that  for 
forgiveness.  The  cry,  "  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,"  is 
not  a  prayer  for  what  we  call  renewal.  The  '  heart '  is  the 
conscience  ;  and  the  prayer  is  that  God  would  by  one  act  of 
forgiving  grace  create,  bring  into  being,  for  this  penitent  a 
clean  conscience,  on  which  lay  no  blot  either  to  his  feeling 
or  to  God's  eye. 

The  main  points  are  these.  The  petitioner  begins  his 
prayer  with  what  we  might  call  an  outburst  of  feeling : 
"  Pity  me,  0  God!'  The  cry  has  been  long  repressed ;  his 
feelings  have  chafed  behind  his  closed  lips,  demanding  an 
outlet ;  but  he  has  stubbornly  kept  silence.  At  last  they 
break  through  like  confined  waters — "  Pity  me,  0  God, 
according  to  thy  loving -kindness " ;  then  comes  a  laying 
bare  of  his  consciousness  to  support  his  cry  for  pity. 

First,  he  utters  such  expressions  as  these,  "  cleanse  me," 
"  wash  me,"  "  sprinkle  me  with  hyssop,  and  I  shall  be 
clean."  Perhaps  the  Psalmist  has  here  before  his  mind 
what  we  call  the  iMution  of  sin,  its  evilness  in  itself.  It 
is  of  the  nature  of  a  stain  on  the  nature  of  man,  apart  from 
its  consequences,  and  without  bringing  in  subsidiary  ideas 
of  its  relation  to  God  and  of  its  liability  to  punishment. 
And  when  he  speaks  of  washing  him  thoroughly,  he  perhaps 
has  in  his  mind  the  idea  of  a  cloth  into  which  stains  have 
entered  and  have  dyed  its  very  tissues  ;  just  as  in  the  words 
*  cleanse  me '  he  refers  to  the  disease  of  leprosy,  a  disease 
that  more  than  any  other  almost  is  constitutional,  and, 
though  appearing  externally,  pervades  the  whole  body. 
And  very  beautiful  is  the  contrast  which  he  would  present 
when  forgiven  and  purified :  "  I  shall  be  whiter  than  the 
snow."  Still  I  should  not  lay  much  stress  on  this,  because 
such  terms  as  *  wash,'  etc.,  are  all  used  of  forgiveness. 

Second,  he  says :  "  Behold,  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity ; 
and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me."     This  sin  is  in- 


THE    FIFTY-FIRST    PSALM  233 

herited ;  not  he  alone,  l)ut  <ill  al)(>nt  liini  are  sinfnl.  The 
Psabnist  does  not  plead  tliis  as  an  extenuation  of  his  act, 
but  rather  as  an  aggravation  of  his  condition.  It  deepens 
the  darkness  of  his  state  which  he  presents  before  the  eye 
of  God,  and  is  an  intensification  of  his  plea  for  *  pity.'  In 
opposition  to  tliis  condition  of  his  he  places  what  he  knows 
to  be  the  moral  desire  of  God :  "  Thou  desirest  truth  in  the 
inward  parts  :  in  tlie  hidden  part  make  me  to  know  wisdom." 
He  supports  his  prayer,  both  by  the  desperate  condition  of 
nature  and  conduct  in  which  he  is  himself,  and  by  what  he 
knows  to  be  tlie  gracious  desire  of  God,  that  no  creature  of 
His  hand  sliould  remain,  or  be,  in  such  a  condition. 

Third,  he  uses  these  expressions :  "  Against  Thee,  Thee 
only,  have  I  sinned.  Hide  Thy  face  from  my  sin."  This  is 
an  additional  idea — sin  is  against  God.  The  words  against 
Thee  only  mean  against  Thee,  even  Thee ;  as :  "I  will  make 
mention  of  Thy  righteousness,  of  Thine  only,"  that  is,  even  of 
Thine  (Ps.  Ixxi.  16).  The  words  express  the  judgment  of 
the  conscience  regarding  sin  ;  it  is  against  God.  No  doubt 
you  might  confirm  this  judgment  by  reflection.  All  sins 
are  against  God,  for  God  is  present  in  all  the  laws  that 
regulate  society ;  when  we  offend  against  men,  it  is  against 
Him  in  truth  that  we  are  impinging.  He  is  behind  all 
phenomena ;  He  is  in  every  brother  man  whom  w^e  meet. 
Yet  this  is  scarcely  before  the  Psalmist.  The  words  are 
the  expression  of  conscience,  which,  when  it  opens  its  eye, 
always  beholds  God,  often  beholds  nothing  but  God.  The 
world  is  empty,  containing  but  the  sinner  and  God.  The 
Psalmist  feels  all  else  disappear,  and  there  is  only  the  full, 
luminous  face  of  God  bearing  down  upon  him. 

Fourth,  he  uses  such  phrases  as :  "  Cast  me  not  from 
Thy  presence  ";  "  Take  not  thy  holy  Spirit  from  me,"  and  the 
like.  The  two  expressions  mean  much  the  same.  God  in 
the  world  is  the  Spirit  of  God.  The  holy  Spirit  is  the 
name  for  all  godly  aspirations,  as  well  as  for  the  cause  of 
them;  it  is  that  quickened  human  spirit  which  strives 
after  God,  and  it  is  that  Divine  moving  which  causes  it  to 
strive,  and  it  is  that  God  even  after  whom  there  is  the 


234       THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

strife.  Its  taking  away  would  leave  the  soul  without  any- 
thing of  all  this.  And  the  Psalmist  by  his  prayer  seems  to 
imply  that  he  had  felt  himself  as  if  on  the  brink  of  this 
abyss — his  sin  seemed  to  him  to  cany  in  it  the  possibility 
of  this  consequence,  when  he  should  be  without  God  in  the 
world. 

These  are  some  of  the  thoughts  of  sin  in  the  mind  of 
this  penitent,  causing  him  to  cry,  Pity  me.  Not  less  pro- 
found is  his  concluding  petition  :  "  Eestore  to  me  the  joy 
of  Thy  salvation  " ;  "  then  will  I  teach  transgressors  Thy 
ways  " ;  "  Open  Thou  my  lips ;  and  my  mouth  shall  show 
forth  Thy  praise.'*  This  is  still  a  prayer  for  forgiveness ; 
but  it  contains  an  outlook  into  the  Psalmist's  future.  The 
words  express  the  Psalmist's  idea  of  that  which  should  lie 
at  the  basis  of  all  life,  of  any  life — the  sense  of  forgiveness. 
Of  course,  he  does  not  mean  by  opening  his  lips,  giving  him 
boldness  after  his  great  sin  to  come  before  men  with  ex- 
hortations, who  might  reply  to  him :  Physician,  heal  thy- 
self. It  is  not  courage  to  speak,  but  a  theme  of  which  to 
speak  to  men  that  he  desires.  There  is  a  singular  sincerity 
in  his  mood.  He  cannot,  in  speaking  to  men,  go  beyond 
what  he  has  himself  experienced.  His  words  are :  "  Blot 
out  my  transgressions ;  then  will  I  teach  transgressors  Thy 
ways  " — Thy  way  in  forgiving.  "  Open  Thou  my  lips  ;  then 
shall  my  mouth  show  forth  Thy  praise."  "  Who  is  a 
God  like  unto  Thee,  pardoning  iniquity  ? "  By  "  open 
my  lips  "  he  means  "  enable  me  to  speak,"  i.e.  through 
imparting  to  him  the  sense  of  forgiveness. 

These  are  some  of  the  thoughts  of  sin — its  pollution ; 
its  being  inherited  ;  its  being  in  truth,  whatever  form  it  may 
have  outwardly,  against  God  ;  its  tendency  to  encroach  upon 
and  swallow  up  the  moral  lights  of  the  soul,  till  all  that  can 
be  called  the  Holy  Spirit  is  withdrawn ;  and  the  true  idea 
of  a  life  in  the  world  and  an  activity  among  men  which  is 
founded  on  forgiveness.  And,  of  course,  there  is  to  be 
observed,  what  runs  through  all  the  Psalm,  faith  in  God's 
forgiving  mercy :  "  Have  pity  on  me,  according  to  Thy 
goodness:    according    to    the    multitude    of    Thy    tender 


THE   COVENANT    RELATION  235 

merciefl,  blot  out  my  transgressions."  Similar  tlioughts 
are  contained  in  many  other  passages,  such  as  Ps.  xxxii. ; 
but  multiplication  of  exam])les  would  not  add  anything 
to  the  points  just  referred  to. 


VIIL   THE  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION. 

1.   The  Covenant, 

The  only  aspect  under  wliicli  Scripture  regards  the 
constitution  of  Israel,  is  its  religious  aspect.  The  Israelit- 
ish  State  is  everywhere  regarded  as  a  religious  community ; 
in  other  words,  as  that  which  we  call  the  kingdom  of  God 
or  of  Jehovah.  To  the  Scripture  writers  it  has  no  otlier 
aspect  of  interest.  But  under  this  aspect  they  embrace 
all  its  fortunes  and  vicissitudes.  These  have  all  a  religious 
meaning.  Its  deliverance  out  of  Egypt,  its  settlement  in 
Canaan,  its  peaceful  abode  there,  and  its  ejectment  out  of 
that  land,  have  all  a  rehgious  significance.  They  express 
some  side  or  some  aspect  of  its  relation  to  Jehovah,  God 
of  Israel.  In  other  words,  Israel  is  the  people  of  God, 
and  all  that  happens  to  it  illustrates  in  some  way  its 
relations  to  God.  This  is  the  fundamental  position  to  be 
taken  in  reading  the  Scriptures,  or  in  any  attempt  to 
understand  them. 

Further,  though  Israel  be  the  people  of  God,  and 
though  it  is  as  the  people  of  God  only  that  it  is  spoken  of 
in  Scripture,  this,  of  course,  does  not  make  its  external  form 
of  no  estimation.  Its  external  form  is  of  the  higliest 
consequence,  because  it  iionlyjhrough  ttiis  form  that  its 
existence  as  the  people  _of  God  is  revealed ;  it  is  through 
this  form  that  its  consciousness  of  what  it  was  manifests 
itself ;  and  it  is  through  this  form  that  God's  dealings 
with  it  reach  its  heart  and  act  upon  it,  quite  as  much 
as  God  acts  upon  a  man  through  the  vicissitudes  of 
his  bodily  life  and  his  social  history.  This  external 
form,  which  it  had  as  a  State  or  people  among  peoples, 


236   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

was  not  a  form  essential  to  a  Church  of  God,  but 
it  was  the  form  in  which  the  community  of  God  then 
existed.  The  reasons  why  God  gave  it  this  form  to  begin 
with  may,  some  of  them,  He  deeper  than  we  can  fathom, 
but  we  can  see  many  of  them.  In  a  world  which  was 
idolatrous  all  round,  it  was  well  to  enlist  on  the  side  of 
truth,  patriotism  and  popular  sympathy,  and  national  self- 
consciousness  and  honour,  in  order  to  conserve  the  truth, 
lest  it  should  be  dissipated  and  evaporate  from  the  world, 
if  merely  consigned  to  the  keeping  of  individuals.  And, 
no  doubt,  there  were  wider  designs  in  contemplation,  such 
as  to  give  to  the  world  the  ideal  of  a  religious  State,  as 
a  model  for  the  nations  of  the  world  to  strive  after,  and 
to  be  attained  when  the  kingdoms  shall  be  the  Lord's. 
For  the  social  and  civil  life  of  the  nations  must  yet,  no  doubt, 
ultimately  be  embraced  under  their  religious  life,  although 
the  one  need  never  be  identified  with  the  other. 

But  perhaps,  in  reflecting  on  this  question,  this  fact 
should  always  be  kept  in  mind,  that  God's  treatment  of 
men  in  some  measure  accommodates  itself  to  the  varying 
state  of  the  world  at  the  time.  At  this  early  time  each 
nation  had  its  own  national  god.  The  national  idea  and 
the  religious  idea  were  closely  united.  Thus  Micah,  iv.  5, 
says :  "  Every  people  walketh  in  the  name  of  his  god,  and 
we  will  walk  in  the  name  of  the  Lord  our  God  for  ever 
and  ever."  Eeligion,  especially  among  the  Shemitic  nations, 
was  national.  It  was  not  monotheism,  but  monolatry,  or 
particularism ;  the  nations  worshipped  each  their  own 
god.  So,  perhaps,  this  peculiarity  was  accepted  as  the 
basis  of  God's  revelation  of  Himself  to  Israel.  Through 
this  idea  the  people  were  gradually  educated  in  true 
thoughts  of  God.  Their  history,  interpreted  by  their  pro- 
phets, taught  the  people  how  much  greater  Jehovah  was 
than  the  national  God  of  Israel.  To  have,  and  to  worship, 
one  God  was,  in  itself,  a  great  step  towards  realising  that 
there  was  no  God  but  one. 

The  characteristic,  however,  of  the  Old  Testament 
Church   was   found   first   to   lie    here,  that   all  .the   truth 


RELIGION    SYMBOLISED  237 

revealed  to  it,  and  all  the  life  manifested  in  it,  had  this 
concrete  and  external  form — partly  national  and  partly 
ritual.  The  truth  and  the  life  were  eml)odied.  That  is, 
every  truth  had  a  hull  or  shell  protecting  it — a  cosmical 
form  or  form  of  this  world.  The  truth  and  the  life  were 
not  strictly  spiritual,  but  manifested  always  through  a 
body.  In  other  words,  the  religion  was  in  almost  all 
cases  symholiscd.  And  this  was  partly  that  wherein  the 
inferiority  of  the  Old  Dispensation  lay.  Tliis  condition  of 
inferiority  endured  till  Christ  came,  when  there  passed  over 
the  Old  Testament  a  transformation,  and  it  became  new. 
The  spiritual  truths  broke  through  the  husks  that  had 
l)een  needful  for  their  protection  till  the  time  of  their 
maturity  came,  and  they  stood  out  in  their  own  power  as 
universal. 

Another  point  of  inferiority  lay  in  this,  that  the 
truths  had  been  made  known  piecemeal,  and  were  not 
understood  in  their  unity.  But  with  Christ,  the  scattered 
fragments  came  together,  bone  to  his  bone,  and  stood  upon 
their  feet,  organic  bodies,  articulated  and  living.  It  was 
the  same  truths  of  religion  which  Old  Testament  writers 
were  revealing,  and  Old  Testament  saints  believing  and 
living  by ;  it  could  not  be  any  other,  if  they  were  truths 
of  religion ;  but  the  truths  were  scattered  and  disjointed, 
and  were  not  apprehended  in  their  organic  oneness,  and 
they  were  also  clothed  in  material  forms.  This  is  all  that 
is  needful  to  be  held  of  what  is  known  as  Typology.^  It 
is  not  implied  that  the  pious  Israelites  knew  the  particular 
future  reference  of  the  things  they  believed.  All  Israel 
knew  that  they  had  a  future  reference  in  general.  But 
they  were  present  religious  truths,  clear  enough  to  live  by, 
although  many  might  desire  more  light.  And  the  sym- 
l)oli8m  of  them  aided  in  bodying  out  to  men's  minds  the 

^  On  tliis  see  more  at  length  in  the  author's  Old  Testament  Pro])hec}/, 
pp.  210-241  ;  also  Dr.  Patrick  Fairbairn's  Tyitology  of  Scripture  ;  J.  Chr.  K. 
von  Hofmann's  Weissaguii.g  nnd  Erfiillnng  ;  Franz  Delitzsch's  Die  hihlisch- 
prophetische  Theologie  ;  Diestel's  Geschichte  des  Altoi  I'estameiits  in  der 
Chnstlichen  Kirche,  etc. — Ed. 


238   THE  THEOLOGY  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

meaning  of  the  practices  enjoined  upon  tliom,  and  the  life 
demanded  from  them.  And  everything  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment pointed  towards  the  future.  The  very  symbohsni 
was  prophetic  ;  for  a  symbolism  from  its  nature  always 
embodies  ideas  in  their  perfection.  Thus  the  priests'  robes, 
clean  and  white,  taught  men's  minds  that  only  perfect 
purity  can  come  before  God — the  man  whose  hands  are 
clean  and  whose  heart  is  pure ;  but  as  no  man  then  came 
up  to  that  ideal,  the  thought  and  the  hope  were  awakened 
of  One  who  should  attain  to  it,  or  of  a  time  when  all 
should  reach  it.  We  should  distinguish  between  symbolism 
and  typology — that  is,  between  a  ritual  and  national  em- 
bodiment of  religious  truth  so  as  that  it  had  a  concrete, 
material  form,  and  any  merely  future  reference  of  the 
truth  or  the  symbol.  The  future  reference,  so  far  as 
appears,  was  nowhere  expressly  taught  contemporaneously 
with  the  institution  of  the  symbol.  The  symbol  expressed 
truth  as  a  present  possession  of  the  Church  which  then 
was.  The  bent  of  the  national  mind,  its  sense  of  imper- 
fection, its  lofty  idealism,  gradually  brought  to  its  con- 
sciousness that  the  time  for  realising  lay  in  the  future. 
The  perfection  of  the  idea  and  the  imperfection  of  the 
attainment,  with  the  longing  that  the  one  should  be  equal 
to  the  other,  made  the  symbolism,  whether  ritual  or 
national,  to  be  prophetic — that  is,  converted  it  into  what 
has  been  known  in  the  Church  as  a  typology.  But  in 
this  technical  sense  typology  does  not  concern  us  much 
in  our  efforts  to  understand  how  prophets  and  righteous 
men  thought  and  lived  in  those  Old  Testament  times. 

(1)  Now  we  never  have  in  the  Old  Testament  formal 
statements  of  an  abstract  kind.  What  we  have  is  the 
expression  of  a  consciousness  already  long  formed.  The 
Old  Testament  people  were  in  the  condition  of  the  people 
of  salvation.  This  relation  liad  been  long  formed.  And 
any  utterances  relating  to  it  are  not  general  statements  of 
what  it  should  be,  or  even  of  what  it  is ;  but  rather 
expressions  of  the  feeling  of  realising  it — religious,  not 
theological  utterances.     The  fundamental  redemptive  idea 


VARIETIES    OF    COVENANTS  230 

in  Israel,  then,  the  most  general  conception  in  what  might 
be  termed  IsraeTs^-CQiisciQusiiess  of  salvation,  was  the  idea 
of  its  being  in  covennnt  wWh  Jehovah.  Tliis  embraced  all. 
Other  redemptive  ideas  nnlto  but  deductions  from  this,  or 
arose  from  an  analysis  of  it.  The  idea  of  the  covenant  is, 
so  to  speak,  the  frame  within  which  the  development  goes 
on  ;  tliis  development  being  in  great  measure  a  truer  under- 
standing of  what  ideas  lie  in  the  two  related  elements, 
Jehovah  on  the  one  side  and  the  people  on  the  other,  and 
in  the  nature  of  the  relation.  This  idea  of  a  covenant 
was  not  a  conception  struck  out  by  the  religious  mind 
and  applied  only  to  things  of  religion ;  it  was  a  conception 
transferred  from  ordinary  Hfe  into  the  rehgious  sphere. 

The  word  nna,  connected  perhaps  with  t^*'?,  n")3  =  to 
cuty  means  any  agreement  entered  into  under  solemn  cere- 
monies of  sacrifice.  Hence,  to  make  a  jjovenant  is  usually 
'3  m3  to  CM^_a  covenant,  ix.  slay  victims  in  forming  the 
agreement,  giving  it  thus  either  a  religious  sanction  in 
general,  or  specifically  imploring  on  one's  self  the  fate  of  the 
slain  victims  if  its  conditions  were  disregarded.  Anything 
agreed  upon  between  two  peoples  or  two  men,  under  such 
sanction,  was  a  covenant.  Two  tribes  that  agree  to  live 
at  amity,  to  intermarry  or  trade  together,  make  a  covenant 
When  a  king  is  elected,  there  is  a  covenant  between  him 
and  the  people.  The  marriage  relation  is  a  covenant. 
The  brotherly  relation  of  affection  between  Jonathan  and 
David  was  a  covenant.  So  one  makes  a  covenant  with 
his  eyes  not  to  look  sinfully  upon  a  woman  (Job  xxxi.  1); 
witli  the  beasts  of  the  field,  to  live  at  peace  with  them 
(Job  V.  23).  The  victor  makes  a  covenant  with  the  van- 
quished to  give  him  quarter  and  spare  him.  A  covenant 
may  be  made  between  equals,  as  between  Abraham  and 
Abimelech  (Gen.  xxi.  32);  or  between  parties  unequal, 
as  between  Joshua  and  the  Gibeonites  (Josh.  ix.  15); 
or  when  one  invokes  the  superior  power  of  another,  m 
when  Asa  bribed  Benhadad  with  all  tlie  silver  nud  gold 
of  the  Lord's  house  (1  Kings  xv.  19);  and  in  other 
ways.     Generally  there  accompanied  the  forming  of  such 


240   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

agreements,  sacrifice,  and  eating  of   it   in   common,   as   is 
described  in  Jer.  xxxiv.  and  in  other  parts  of  Scripture. 

The  covenant  contemplated  certain  ends,  and  it  reposed 
on  certain  conditions,  mutually  undertaken.      Although  it 
might  be  altogether  for  the  advantage  of  one  of  the  parties, 
as  in  the  case  of  Joshua  and  the  Gibeonites,  both  parties 
came  under  obligations.     There  arose  a  right  or  jus  under 
it,  although  none  existed  before,  and  although  the  forma- 
tion of  it  was   of   pure  grace  on  one   side.     The   parties 
contracting    entered    into    understood    relations   with    one 
another,  which   both  laid    themselves   under  obligation  to 
observe.      Jehovah  imposed   His  covenant  on  Israel.      He 
did  this  in  virtue  of  His  having  redeemed  Israel  out  of 
Egypt.      The  covenant  was  just  the  bringing  to  the  con- 
sciousness of  the  people  the  meaning  of  Jehovah's  act  in 
redeeming  them ;  and,  translated  into  other  words,  reads : 
'  I  will  be  your  God,  and  ye  shall  be  My  people.'     The 
covenant  bore  that    Israel   should  be  His.      This  was  the 
obligation  lying  on   Israel,  and  the  obligation  He  laid  on 
Himself  was,  that  He  should  be  their  God,  with  all  that 
this  implied.      Hencefortli,  Israel  was  not  in  a  condition 
towards  Jehovah   which  was  absolutely  destitute  of  rights 
and    claims.      Jehovah     had     contracted     Himself    into    a 
relation.      He   was   God    of    Israel,   under    promise   to   be 
Israel's  defence  and  light  and  guide ;  to  be,  in  short,  all 
that    God   was.      Even   when   Israel    sinned.   He   was   re- 
strained by  His  covenant  from  destroying  Israel,  even  from 
chastising  Israel  beyond  measure.      No  doubt,  when   Israel 
failed  to  fulfil   the   conditions  of   tlie   covenant,  it   might 
be  said   to  cease.      That  would   have   Iield  of  a  covenant 
between  equals,  or  if  botli  had  souglit  mutual  advantage 
from  it.      l^ut  Jehovah  had  laid  it  upon  Israel.      And  the 
same  love  and  sovereignty  which  chose  Israel  at  first  were 
involved  in  retaining  Israel  in  covenant ;  and  when  the  old 
covenant  failed,  Jehovah,  as  true  to  Himself,  promised  to 
make  a  new  covenant  with  Israel  wliich  could  not  fail  of 
securing  its  oltjects. 

We  touch  a  very  peculiar  question,  and  one  of  pro- 


COVENANT    AND    PEOPLE  241 

founder  character,  here.  When  the  prophets  and  writer.s 
of  Israel  speak  of  tlie  justice  or  righteousness  of  Jehovali, 
and  consider  that  it  implies  that  He  will  save  His  people, 
they  move,  so  to  speak,  within  the  covenant.  Salvation 
is  due  to  them  as  a  people  of  Jehovah.  He  is  righteous 
in  delivering  them.  But  when  they  themselves  have 
broken  the  covenant,  then  they  must  fall  back  on  the 
nature  of  Jehovah,  on  that  in  Him  which  led  Him  to  take 
them  to  Himself  as  a  people.  The  fact  of  His  entering  into 
relation  with  Israel  suggests  what  His  nature  is ;  and  on 
that  larger  basis  they  build  their  hopes.  But  it  may  perhaps 
be  said  that  prophets  and  psalmists  do  not  appeal  nnich  to 
the  covenant,  and  to  Jehovah's  obligations  under  it.  When 
they  say,  "  Kemember  the  covenant,"  it  is  =  "  liemember 
the  past,  the  old  relation — that  with  Abraham,"  etc. 

.(2)  It  is  important  to  remember  that  the  covenant  was 
made  with  the  peiiple.^as_a,JsJiaIfi,_not  with  individuals. 
This  is  the  Old  Testament  point  of  view.  The  people  are 
regarded  as  a  whole,  and  individuals  share  tlie  benefit  of 
the  covenant  as  members  of  the  nation.  The  religious 
subject  or  unit  in  the  Old  Testament  is  the  people  of 
Israel.  This  subject  came  into  existence  at  the  Exodus, 
when  Jeliovah  delivered  the  tribes  from  Egypt.  Hence- 
forth the  people  feels  itself  a  unity — a  subject,  and  Jehovah 
is  its  God.  There  subsisted  between  Jehovah  and  this 
people  a  relation  of  mutual  right  in  each  other.  Jeliovah 
as  God  of  Israel  bound  Himself  to  protect  the  nation  l^y 
His  almighty  arm  in  all  its  necessities  arising  from  its 
relations  without ;  to  instruct  it  witli  laws  and  prophecy, 
and  with  the  teacliing  of  His  wisdom  in  all  its  national 
organisations  within  ;  to  be  to  it  the  Head  in  every  de- 
partment of  its  national  life.  He  was  its  King — King 
in  Jeshurun — King  of  Jacob.  He  inspired  its  teacheis. 
Amos  sketches  the  two  lines  along  which  Jehovah's  grace 
ran.  (1)  The  tcmjwral:  "I  destroyed  the  Amorite  before 
you  " ;  "I  led  you  forty  years  in  the  wilderness  to  give  you 
the  land  of  the  Amorite"  (ii.  9,  10).  (2)  The  .ynritml^- 
to  the  prophet  the  greater :  "  I  raised  up  }'uui'  young  men 
i6 


242       THE   THEOLOGY   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

to  be  prophets  and  Nazirites"  (Amos  ii.  11).  He  led  its 
armies ;  its  watchword  on  the  field  was :  "  The  sword  of 
Jehovah  and  of  Gideon  "  (Judg.  vii.  18).  And  the  Psalmist 
laments  that  He  no  longer,  in  the  time  of  its  downfall, 
went  forth  with  its  armies  (Ps.  xliv.  9). 

And  the  people  was  His,  devoting  all  its  energies  to 
His  service.  Hence  there  was  in  Israel  no  priestly  class, 
as  in  other  nations,  privileged  in  their  own  right  to  draw 
near  to  Jehovah  to  the  exclusion  of  others.  The  priests  but 
represented  the  nation.  The  high  priest  bore  the  names 
of  the  tribes  on  his  breast.  In  him  all  drew  near.  They 
were  a  kingdom  of  priests,  and  an  holy  nation  (Ex.  xix.  6). 
This  possession  of  each  other,  so  to  speak,  was  not  only 
positive,  but  also  negative.  It  was  negative  ;  for  though  the 
earth  and  all  people  were  Jehovah's,  He  was  God  of  no 
people  as  He  was  of  Israel.  As  Amos  says :  "  You  only 
have  I  known  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth"  (iii.  2). 
x4.nd  though  Israel  was  among  the  nations,  it  was  not  one 
of  the  nations.  It  was  debarred  from  imitating  them  ;  from 
relying  on  horses  and  fenced  cities  for  its  preservation,  as 
they  did  (Hos.  i.  7,  viii.  14,  etc.);  from  following  their 
manners,  or  practising  their  rites.  This  attitude  of  the 
prophets  towards  an  army  and  fenced  cities  might  seem 
to  us  mere  fanaticism ;  it  was  certainly  faith  in  Jehovah 
as  the  Saviour  of  the  people  of  a  very  lofty  kind.  The 
nation  was  cut  off,  and  separated ;  and  Isaiah  recognises 
that  it  was  near  its  downfall  when  he  could  say  that  it 
was  filled  from  the  east,  and  full  of  silver  and  gold,  and 
filled  with  sorcerers  like  the  Philistines  (ii.  6  ;  cf.  Mic. 
V.   10-15). 

It  was  also  positive.  For  Jehovah  poured  out  in 
Israel  all  His  fulness.  Thus  He  bestowed  on  them  the 
land  of  Canaan  (Jer.  ii.  7),  to  perform  tlie  oath  which 
He  sware  unto  their  fathers  to  give  them  a  land  flow- 
ing with  milk  and  honey.  And  Israel  dedicated  all  to 
Him ;  itself  and  its  property.  That  the  manhood  of  the 
nation  was  His,  was  symbolised  l)y  the  dedication  to  Him 
of  all  the  firstborn.     That  the  increase  of   the  land  was 


RELIGIOUS    IDEA    OF    THE   SABBATH  243 

His,  was  sliowii  in  the  devotion  to  Him  of  tlio  first-fruits. 
That  its  life  and  time  were  His,  appeared  from  tlie  sotting 
apart  of  the  Sabbath,  and  the  stated  times  of  feast.  The 
seventh  week,  the  seventh  year,  the  seventh  seventh  or 
fiftieth  year,  the  year  of  Jubilee.  These  are  all  laws  as 
ancient  as  the  nation.  We  sometimes  hear  the  opinion 
expressed  that  the  idea  of  the  Sal)bath  was  only  rest, 
cessation  from  toil,  and  tliat  thus  it  was  a  merely  humani- 
tarian institution.  But  this  is  to  entirely  mistake  ancient 
institutions.  All  institutions  were  an  expression  of  religion. 
The  Sabbath  expressed  a  religious  idea — the  acknowledg- 
ment that  time  was  Jehovah's  as  well  as  all  things.  The 
day  was  sanctijled,  that  is,  dedicated  to  Jehovah.  The 
householder  allowed  his  servants  to  rest,  not,  of  course, 
with  the  modern  idea  that  they  might  liave  time  to  serve 
God,  but  with  the  ancient  idea  that  the  rest  of  his  servants 
and  cattle  was  part  of  his  own  rest,  part  of  liis  own  full 
dedication  of  the  day  to  God.  Hence  in  tlie  Deuteronomic 
law  the  duty  of  keeping  the  Sabbath  is  based  on  the  Lord's 
redemption  of  the  people  from  Egypt. 

On  the  position  of  the  individual,  liiehm  expresses 
himself  thus : — 

"The  moral  and  religious  significance  of  tlie  individual 
personality  is  not  yet  fully  recognised.  CJod  stands  in 
relation  to  the  whole  people,  but  the  individual  does  not 
[yet]  call  him  Father  [though  the  pc()])le  do,  Isa.  Ixiv.  7]. 
Only  tlie  people  as  such  is  chosen  [or  elect],  and  merely  as 
a  menil)er  of  the  same  has  the  individual  a  portion  in  this 
choice.  Every  disturbance  of  the  relation  of  fellowship 
between  God  and  Israel  is  not  only  felt  by  him  to  be 
painful,  but  it  is  also  felt  as  a  disturbance  of  his  own 
personal  relations  to  the  Most  High.  But  along  with  the 
people  [as  a  whole],  the  greater  and  smaller  circles  within  it 
exercise  also  an  infiuence  upon  the  relation  of  the  individual 
to  God.  So  the  sin  of  the  fathers  is  visited  upon  the 
children  ;  the  punishment  infiicted  upon  the  head  of  the 
family  embraces  also  all  that  belong  to  In'ni  [r.f/.  Korah]. 
It    is    only    later    that    the    meaning    of     the    individual 


244   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

personality,  its  personal  responsibility,  and  the  determina- 
tion of  its  relations  to  God  by  its  own  free  moral  decision 
receive  full  recognition.  For  example,  the  belief  that  the 
children  bear  the  sins  of  the  fatliers  is  limited  both  in 
Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  in  the  clearest  way,  by  insisting  on 
the  essential  dependence  of  punishment  upon  personal 
guilt"  (Alttest.  TheoL,  p.  28).  This  tendency  in  the  Old 
Testament  to  push  the  individual  into  the  background 
helps  to  explain  many  things,  e.g.  the  little  prominence 
given  to  the  idea  of  personal  immortality  until  a  com- 
paratively late  period.  The  immortality  that  the  prophets 
speak  of  is  that  of  the  State  or  kingdom.  The  doctrine  of 
personal  immortality  followed  the  doctrine  of  personal 
responsibility. 

We  must  beware,  however,  of  pressing  the  national 
idea  to  an  extreme,  so  as  to  go  the  length  of  saying  that 
Jehovah  had  no  relation  to  individuals,  or  that  individuals 
had  no  consciousness  of  personal  relation  to  Him.  This  is 
extravagance.  One  cannot  read  the  history  of  Abraliam 
in  the  Pentateuch — part  of  it  anterior  to  the  prophets — 
without  being  convinced  that  this  is  an  exaggeration.  This 
idea  throws  the  whole  Psalter  and  the  Proverbs  into  the 
post-exile  period.  It  is  true  that  in  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel 
the  individual  rises  into  a  prominence  not  seen  in  earlier 
prophets ;  but  these  retain  the  idea  of  the  national  relation 
to  Jehovah  as  much  as  earlier  prophets. 

That  the  dedication  expressed  in  the  covenant  was  not 
a  dedication  on  the  mere  ground  of  nature,  but  one  the 
meaning  of  which  was  the  lifting  up  of  the  people  out  of 
the  sphere  of  nature  life  into  the  pure  region  of  morals 
and  religion,  was  shown  by  the  rite  of  circumcision,  which 
symbolised  tlie  putting  off  of  the  natural  life  of  the  flesh ; 
and  by  the  Paschal  sacrifice,  which  implied  the  redemption 
of  the  nation  with  blood.  All  was  Jehovah's  to  such  an 
extent  that  no  Israelite  could  become  the  owner  of  another 
Israelite ;  slavery  was  forljidden,  and  the  year  of  release 
(seventh  year)  set  the  bond-servant  free.  And  even  the 
land   could   not   be   permanently   alienated.       It   was   not 


THE   COVENANT    AT   SINAI  245 

tlieirs,  but,  like  themselves,  Jehovali's.  Tliis  idea,  that  the 
nation  was  the  Lord's,  appears  particularly  in  the  i)r()phets, 
who  deal  exclusively  witli  the  nation.  Thus  we  Jiave  such 
expressions  as  these  in  Jeremiah :  that  Israel  is  Jehovah's 
firstborn  (xxxi.  9);  that  he  is  the  first-fruits  of  His  increase 
(ii.  3) ;  and  the  fuller  expression  of  the  same  idea :  "  As 
the  girdle  cleaveth  to  the  loins  of  a  man,  so  have  I  caused 
to  cleave  unto  Me  the  whole  house  of  Israel  and  the  wliole 
house  of  Judah,  saith  Jehovah ;  that  they  might  be  unto 
Me  for  a  people,  and  for  a  name,  and  for  a  praise,  and  for 
a  glory"  (xiii.  11).  Hence  such  figures  as  are  conmion,  to 
express  the  covenant  connection ;  for  example,  the  married 
relation,  the  figure  of  a  flock,  etc.  Hence  such  names 
as  Lo  Buhamah,  tmloved ;  Lo-ammi,  not  My  peajde.  Hence 
also  such  terms  as :  "  Hear  the  word  of  the  Lord  against 
the  whole  family  which  I  brought  up  out  of  the  land  of 
Egypt"  (Amos  iii.  1).  It  is  a  frequent  formula  of  the 
prophet's,  indeed,  "  I  am  the  Lord  thy  God  from  the  land  of 
Egypt "  (Hos.  xiii.  4). 

(3)  The  agreement  which  the  prophets  refer  to  under 
the  name  of  covenant  was  that  made  at  Sinai.  This  was  ) 
the  era  of  Israel's  birth  as  a  nation.  Tlien  Jehovah 
created  them,  as  the  word  is  used  in  Isa.  xl.  ff.  Then 
He  became  their  father.  As  Malachi  says  :  "  Have  we  not  j 
all  one  father?  hath  not  one  God  created  us?"  (ii.  10) — • 
language  used  of  Israel  in  opposition  to  the  nations.  No 
doubt  this  was  not  the  only  or  the  first  covenant  which  God 
had  formed  with  men.  For  the  Old  Testament  is  far  from 
regarding  the  rational  spiritual  creature  man  as  a  being 
at  any  time  without  rights  in  his  relations  to  God ;  and 
the  God  of  the  Hebrews  is  far  from  being  an  arbitrary 
despot,  subject  to  no  law  except  His  own  cruel  caprice. 
He  limited  Himself  even  in  relation  to  new  created  man, 
and  made  a  covenant  with  him.  His  very  creation  of  a 
reasona])le  and  moral  creature  brought  Him  into  covenant. 
God,  when  He  came  down  from  His  Godhead  and  con- 
descended to  create,  thereby  entered  into  close  relationa 
with  man  and  all  things  made.     This  was  a  covenant  with 


246   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

all  His  works.  When  He  looked  upon  His  creation  which 
He  had  made,  He  found  it  *  good/  and  He  ceased  to  create. 
It  was  an  arena  suitable  for  the  display  of  all  that  He 
was ;  and  He  reposed  in  satisfaction.  And  this  repose  and 
satisfaction  expresses  His  relation  to  the  creation.  And 
of  this  condition  of  God's  mind  toward  creation,  the 
Sabbath  was  a  symbol.  It  was  the  sign  of  His  covenant 
with  creation.  It  is  the  earthly  correspondent  to  what  is 
the  condition  of  Jehovah's  mind  towards  creation — this  is 
creation's  response  to  His  satisfied  and  beneficent  mind 
towards  it ;  hence  the  Old  Testament  also  speaks  of  the 
land  enjoying  her  Sabbaths  (Lev.  xxvi.  34,  43).  It  is 
creation's  entering  into  covenant  with  Jehovah  —  the 
expression  of  this  on  its  side. 

Again,  when  He  had  asserted  Himself  as  the  moral 
governor  of  men,  He  made  another  covenant  with  the  new 
race  that  survived  the  Flood.  This  was  also,  so  to  speak, 
a  covenant  on  the  basis  of  nature,  though  directed  to  the 
human  family  chiefly.  Its  conditions  were  abstaining  from 
blood,  and  the  sacredness  of  human  life.  The  sign  was  the 
light  in  the  heavens  appearing  on  the  face  of  the  cloud ; 
the  symbol  of  the  new  light  of  God's  face  and  of  life 
shining  on  the  dark  background  of  the  watery  firmament. 
Again,  He  made  a  covenant  with  Abraham.  But  here 
the  covenant  passes  from  the  region  of  nature  to  that 
of  grace ;  from  the  wide  area  of  creation  and  of  natural 
human  life,  to  the  moral  region  and  to  the  redeemed  life. 
The  conditions  of  this  covenant  were  the  Promises.  The 
sign  of  it  was  circumcision,  the  symbol  of  a  putting  off  the 
natural  and  entering  upon  a  new  spiritual  life.  Thus  these 
three  express  a  gradual  progression:  (1)  The  Sabbath;  a 
covenant  with  creation.  (2)  The  Noachian  covenant ;  a 
covenant  with  man,  expressing  the  sacredness  of  natural 
luiman  life — consciousness  of  man  as  belonging  to  Jehovah. 
(3)  The  covenant  with  Abraham  ;  a  covenant  of  grace,  of 
spiritual  life.  But  the  covenant  of  the  prophets  is  the 
covenant  of  Sinai,  in  which  Jehovah  became  God  of  the 
nation. 


MORAL    MEANING    OF    THE    COVENANT  247 

(4)  The  motive  to  the  fonnatiou  of  this  covenant  on 
Jehovah's  part  was  His  love.  It  is  important  to  notice  tliat 
tlie  idea  of  a  covenant  is  a  moral  one  ;  the  formation  of  it 
implies  free  action  on  the  part  of  Jehovah,  and  the  motive 
is  a  moral  one — love.  Tlie  relation  of  fleliovah  to  Israel  is 
not  a  natural  one.  In  Shemitic  heathenism  tlie  god  was 
the  natural  father  of  the  people  ;  Jehovah  is  the  redemptive 
Creator  and  Father.  In  Sliemitic  heathenism  the  female 
worshipper  w^as  spouse  of  the  god ;  but  this  was  because 
slie  surrendered  herself  to  prostitution  in  honour  of  the 
god  through  those  who  represented  him.  In  such  prophets 
as  Hosea  the  idea  of  the  people  being  sons  of  the  living 
God,  and  of  tlie  people  being  the  spouse  of  Jehovah,  has  no 
element  of  this  naturalism  in  it ;  the  prophet's  conceptions, 
even  when  he  uses  phraseology  of  this  kind,  wliich  seems 
to  have  some  resemblance  to  that  emphjyed  in  Shemitic 
heathenism,  are  all  spiritual  and  moral. 

It  is  singular,  again,  that  in  the  older  prophets  very  ' 
little  is  said  of  the  covenant.  The  ideas  which  it  expresses 
are  present,  but  the  word  is  not  found.  It  does  not 
occur  in  Joel,  Amos,  or  Micah,  although  Amos  expresses 
the  idea  of  it  w^hen  he  says  for  God  to  Israel :  "  You  only 
have  I  known  of  all  the  families  of  the  earth  "  (iii.  2  ;  and 
cf.  i.  9).  Neither  does  it  appear  in  Obadiah,  Zephaniah, 
or  Habakkuk.  But  it  appears  in  Hosea  more  than  once, 
as,  "  They  have  transgressed  My  covenant,  and  revolted 
from  My  law"  (viii.  1);  and  again:  "But  they,  like 
Adam,  have  transgressed  the  covenant"  (vi.  7).  And  in 
a  form  very  interesting  in  Zechariah,  in  a  section  which 
is  generally  recognised  to  belong  to  an  ancient  prophet 
of  that  name :  "  As  for  Thee  also,  by  the  blood  of 
Thy  covenant  I  have  sent  forth  Thy  prisoners"  (ix.  11). 
It  is  in  Jeremiah  that  the  term  first  comes  into  very 
prominent  use  to  designate  the  relation  of  Jehovah  to 
Israel.  There  was  a  reason  for  this.  This  prophet  lived 
at  a  critical  juncture  in  Israel's  history.  The  constitution 
was  breaking  up.  The  old  order  was  chgjigingj^gmpg...,^ 
place  to  new.      And  the  prophet's  atteu^oi^' 'Vas  shr^rply.  ." 


n 


248   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

directed   to  it.      Its   meaning  was   vividly  brought   before 
him ;  its  purposes,  its  provisions,  its  defects  now  becoming 
apparent,  and  its  failure.      And  as  the  circumstances  of  his 
time   brought  his  mind  to  bear  upon  the  nature  of  that 
covenant  which  had  proved  vain,  so  he  was  enabled  to  rise 
to   the   conception  of   the   new   covenant   which   Jehovah 
should  make  with  His  people,  the  nature  and  provisions  of 
which  would  ensure  its  success.     He  is  the  first  to  prophesy 
of  this,  saying,  "  Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  Jehovah,  that 
I  will  make  a  new  covenant  with  Israel  .  .  .  not  accord- 
ing to  the  covenant  that  I  made  with  their  fathers  in  the 
day  that  I  took  them  by  the  hand  to  bring  them  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt ;  which  My  covenant  they  brake  .  .  .  but 
this  shall  be  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with  the  house 
of  Israel ;  After  those  days,  saith  Jehovah,  I  will  put  My  law 
in  their  inward  parts,  and  write  it  in  their  hearts  ;  and  I  will 
be  their  God,  and  they  shall  be  My  people"  (xxxi.  31-33). 
And   the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  with 
the  singular  insight  which  he  has,  not  into  the  meaning 
of  texts  of  Scripture  in  themselves,  but  into  the  meaning 
which  the  context  gives  them,  thus  speaks :  "  In  that  He 
saith,  A  new  covenant.  He  hath  made  the  first  old.     Now 
that  which  decayeth  and  waxeth   old  is  ready  to  vanish 
away"  (viii.  13);  an  exact  description  of  the  condition  of 
things  in  Jeremiah's  days.      What  took  place  in  the  mind 
of  Jeremiah  in  regard  to  the  covenant  was  directly  paral- 
leled by  what  took  place  in  the  mind  of  another  prophet 
in  regard  to  the  idea  of  Israel,  the  people  of  God,  of  whom 
was   salvation.     The    meaning    of    Israel,   God's    purposes 
with  regard  to  it,  its  position  in  the  w^orld,  its  endowments, 
the  determinations  of  a  spiritual  kind,  impressed  upon  it 
as  the  prophetic  people,  destined  to  be  the  Hght  of  the 
Gentiles,  and  to  bring  forth  righteousness  among  them,  as 
the  Servant  of  the  Lord,  and  the  like — this  conception  of 
Israel  on  all  its  sides   in    God's  plan  of  redemption  was 
raised  in  the  mind  of  that  prophet  to  whom  we  owe  Isa. 
xl.  ff.,  by  the  sense  or   the    fear   of    Israel's   annihilation 
as  a  pf^  'ole  by  the  Babylonian  power. 


THE   SHEMITIC   MIND  249 

2.    Why  the  Covenant  with  Israel  and  not  another  ? 

The  (|iiestion  naturally  occurs,  Why  did  the  Lord  love 
this  people  to  the  exclusion  of  others ;  this  people,  and  not 
some  other  ?  This  question  resolves  itself,  of  course,  into 
the  other.  Why  one,  and  not  all  ?  For  if  He  had  chosen 
any  other,  the  same  question  would  have  arisen.  Why  this 
and  not  that  ?  The  prophets  see  the  love  and  grace  of 
God  in  the  choice.  They  do  not  speculate  on  the  ques- 
tion, Why  they,  and  not  others  ? — in  the  earlier  time. 
But  later  they  give  at  least  a  practical  answer  to  the 
question,  to  wit,  that  the  Lord  chose  them  to  he  the 
medium  of  His  choice  of  others  and  of  His  grace  to  others. 
So  especially  in  Second  Isaiah.  The  answer  is  hardly 
sufficient ;  but  the  same  objection  or  difficulty  would  apply 
everywhere.  There  were,  no  doubt,  positive  reasons. 
These  must  have  lain  partly  in  the  peculiarities  of  the 
Shemitic  mind  to  which  Israel  belonged ;  partly,  perhaps, 
in  the  degree  of  religious  advancement  among  the  Shemitic 
peoples.  For,  (1)  The  Shemitic  peoples  are  no  doubt  dis- 
tinguished by  what  is  called  a  genius  for  religion.  "  If  in 
antiquity  [in  general],"  says  Eiehm,  "  the  religious  feeling 
and  the  consciousness  of  dependence  upon  the  Deity  was 
particularly  lively  and  powerful,  so  that  the  whole  national 
life  was  governed  by  it,  it  was  among  the  Shemitic  nations, 
even  in  antiquity,  that  the  religious  spirit  unfolded  its 
highest  energy.  .  .  .  We  perceive  how  exclusively  the 
religious  spirit  drew  into  its  service  the  whole  national 
life,  even  among  the  Arabs.  It  was  the  same  among  the 
Assyrians,  the  Moabites,  and  other  nations,  where  kings 
show  the  liveliest  consciousness  of  standing  in  all  their 
undertakings  in  the  service  of  the  national  god,  for  whom 
it  is  that  they  carry  on  war  and  make  conquests  "  (Alttest. 
Theol.  p.  48). 

(2)  There  is  the  stage  of  religious  advancement  which 
the  Shemitic  people  had  attained  in  the  age  of  revelation. 
Even  if  the  relif^ion  of  the  Canaanite  and  traus-Jordanic 
nations  was  not  monotheism,  it  was  what  might  be  called 


250   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

henotheisin  or  iiionolatry.  Each  nation  had  its  own  one 
god,  as  Cheinosh,  Milcom,  Baal,  etc.  It  is  possible  that 
these  are  but  different  names  for  the  same  god,  expressing 
the  people's  idea  of  the  god  under  slightly  different  modi- 
fications. But  this  was  a  condition  very  unlike  that  of 
Greece  or  Eome,  which,  even  if  they  had  one  highest  god, 
had  a  multitude  also  of  minor  deities  whom  they  worshipped. 
This  henotheism  was  a  stage  of  religious  attainment  very 
advantageous  to  start  from.  Probably  the  difference  be- 
tween the  religion  of  Israel  and  that  of  their  neighbours 
lies  chiefly  in  the  ethical  character  ascribed  to  Jehovah. 

(3)  We  might  also  say  that  the  characteristics  of  the 
Shemitic  mind  very  well  fitted  one  of  this  nationality  to 
be  the  depositary  of  a  revelation.  The  Shemitic  mind 
is  simple  and  emotional,  without  capacity  for  speculative 
or  metaphysical  thought.  Hence  the  revelation  committed 
to  Israel  retains  its  practical  simplicity,  and  remains  a 
religion  without  ever  becoming  a  theology.  We  know  the 
influence  of  the  Greek  mind  on  Christianity,  and  the  effort 
of  this  age  is  rather  to  get  back  behind  the  Greek  influence, 
and  teach  Christianity  as  the  Shemitic  mind  presented  it 
and  left  it. 

(4)  Be  this  as  it  may,  this  glorious  conception  of  Israel's 
meanhig  in  God's  pui-pose  was  the  rainbow  created  by  that 
dark  cloud  of  desolation  which  tlie  Babylonian  captivity 
threw  upon  the  prophet's  horizon.  All  these  things  sliow 
how  it  was  Israel's  national  history  that  was  of  significance, 
and  how  out  of  its  vicissitudes  God's  great  purposes  became 
revealed.  And  it  was  these  vicissitudes  that  recalled  to 
tlie  prophets  the  meaning  of  the  covenant,  although  it  had 
been  long  expressed  before,  and  made  them  dwell  upon  the 
unchanging  basis  and  motive  of  it,  the  love  of  God.  Hence 
Jeremiah  says  :  "  With  an  eternal  love — or  a  love  of  old — 
have  I  loved  thee  "  (xxxi.  3).  This  love  manifests  itself  in 
choice.  It  is  in  the  second  half  of  Isaiah  and  in  Jeremiah 
that  this  idea  appears  most  frequently.  But  it  is  also  in 
the  Pentateuch.  Tlius,  "Jehovah  hath  not  set  His  love 
upon  you,  and  chosen  you,  because  ye  are  more  than  all 


THE   TEN    WORDS  251 

nations ;  for  ye  are  the  least  of  all  nations :  l)iit  because 
Jehovah  hath  loved  you"  (Deut.  vii.  7).  And  this  choice 
was  irrevocable,  for  the  gifts  and  calling  f>f  God  are  without 
repentance,  as  it  is  expressed  in  Isa.  xli.  8,  9  :  "  But  thou, 
Israel,  My  servant,  Jacob  whom  I  have  chosen,  the  seed  of 
Abraham  my  friend.  Thou  whom  I  took  from  the  ends  of 
the  earth  .  .  .  and  said  unto  thee.  Thou  art  My  servant ; 
I  have  chosen  thee,  and  not  cast  thee  away  " — words  which 
St.  Paul  echoes  when,  standing,  like  this  prophet,  before 
the  desolation  and  disbelief  of  Israel,  he  exclaims :  "  Hath 
God  cast  away  His  people  ?     God  forbid  "  (Kom.  xi.  1). 

(5)  The  conditions  of  the  covenant  are,  of  course,  the 
ten  words  given  at  Sinai.  It  is  not  necessary  to  dwell  on 
this.  But  the  remarkable  thing  is, — which  all  our  reading 
in  the  prophets  reveals, — how  entirely  the  prophets  regard 
the  constitution  of  Israel  as  a  moral  constitution,  and  how 
little  place  ritual  and  ceremony  have  in  tlieir  conception  of 
it.  In  answer  to  the  anxious  demand  of  the  people,  where- 
with they  should  come  before  Jehovah  :  "  Will  the  Lord  be 
pleased  with  thousands  of  rams,  or  with  ten  thousands  of 
rivers  of  oil  ?  "  the  prophet  responds  :  "  He  hath  showed  thee, 
0  man,  what  is  good  ;  and  what  doth  the  Lord  require  of 
thee,  but  to  do  justly,  and  to  love  mercy,  and  to  walk 
humbly  with  thy  God  ?  "  (Mic.  vi.  6-8).  And  a  remarkable 
passage  in  Jeremiali  seems  to  exclude  the  ritual  from  the 
basis  of  the  covenant,  as  it  was  no  doubt  only  a  means  to 
its  preservation :  "  Thus  saith  Jehovah  of  hosts ;  But  your 
burnt-offerings  unto  your  sacrifices,  and  eat  flesh.  For  I 
spake  not  unto  your  fathers,  nor  commanded  them  in  the 
day  that  I  brought  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  con- 
cerning burnt-offerings  or  sacrifices.  But  this  thing  com- 
manded I  them,  saying.  Obey  My  voice,  and  I  will  be  your 
God,  and  ye  shall  be  My  people"  (vii.  21,  22).  Such 
passages  as  these  do  not  contain  any  condemnation  of 
sacrifice  in  itself ;  but  only  a  condemnation  of  the  ex- 
aggerated weight  laid  on  it  by  the  people.  As  Hosea  says : 
"  I  desire  goodness,  and  not  sacrifice ;  tlie  knowledge  of 
God  more  than  burnt-offerings "  (vi.  G).     The  moral  side 


252   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

of  the  covenant  is  to  the  prophets  its  real  meaning ; 
and — what  is  very  pecuUar  in  the  earlier  prophets — it  is 
this  moral  side  of  it  which  even  the  priests  are  charged 
to  teach.  It  is  their  failure  to  teach  this  that  is  blamed 
in  their  conduct,  as  in  Hosea. 

The  covenant  contained  as  its  conditions  the  ethical 
ordinances  of  the  law.  But  of  course  an  ancient  religion 
could  not  exist  without  public  worship.  This  worship  was 
by  means  of  sacrifice  and  offering.  The  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  the  covenant  might  thus  be  developed  along  two 
lines,  ethical  and  spiritual  religion,  as  by  the  prophets ; 
and,  secondly,  ritual  of  worship  —  probably  among  the 
priests.  But  the  two  did  not  develop  co-ordinately  and 
without  contact  and  mutual  influence.  In  particular,  the 
ethical  ideas  of  the  prophets  reacted  largely  upon  the  form 
of  the  ritual.  It  is  probable  that  the  ritual  was  valued  in 
the  main  for  the  ideas  which  it  expressed.  The  particular 
details,  e.g.  what  animals  were  to  be  sacrificed,  and  how 
many,  and  such  matters,  would  be  left  in  the  main  in- 
definite. 

But  the  two  things  to  be  maintained  are :  first,  that 
from  the  beginning  the  religion  of  Jehovah  contained  both 
an  ethical  or  spiritual  side,  and  a  ritual  of  service  or 
worship.  And,  secondly,  that  both,  tracing  their  origin  to 
Moses,  gradually  expanded  in  the  course  of  ages,  received 
additions,  and  underwent  changes  as  circumstances  re- 
quired. The  law,  i.e.  the  ritual,  grew  in  contents  just  as 
much  as  the  ethical  elements  of  the  religion  did.  The  two 
streams  went  on  increasing  side  by  side,  but  the  Law 
tended  always  to  take  up  into  itself  and  embody  the  loftier 
elements  of  the  prophetic  teaching. 

3.   The  Terms  descriptive  of  the  Covenant  Relation. 

Something  must  be  said,  however,  of  the  words  which 
express  this  covenant  relation  of  Israel  and  Jeliovah. 
These  are  the  words  holy,  holiness,  sanctify,  and  the  like — 
the  root  ::np  and  its  derivatives.     These  words,  with  their 


TERMS    FOR   HOLINESS  253 

English  equivalents,  are :  cnp^  to  be  holy ;  Pi.,  Hiph.,  to 
sanctify,  luillow,  consecrate,  dedicate  ;  t:np,  holy  thing,  holi- 
ness, sanctuary,  thing  hallowed;  and  e(|ual  to  'holy'  in 
connection  with  a  noun ;  K^pp,  sanctuary,  holy  place ; 
adjective  K'^'ip,  holy ;  also  as  noun,  saint,  holy  one.  Now 
these  words  are  applied  in  the  Old  Testament :  (a)  to 
things ;  (h)  persons ;  (c)  and  to  Jehovah ;  and  it  is  not 
an  uninteresting  inquiry,  what  is  their  meaning  when  so 
applied  ? 

Now,  in  pursuing  this  inquiry,  it  will  be  best  to 
disregard  opinions  stated  by  others,  and  follow  out  merely 
a  brief  induction  of  passages.  But  perhaps  I  may  state,  to 
begin  with,  the  result  to  which  I  think  comparison  of  the 
passages  will  lead.  These  results  are:  (1)  The  word 
*  holy '  does  not  originally  express  a  moral  attribute,  nor 
even  a  moral  condition  as  the  blending  of  many  attributes, 
when  applied  either  to  God  or  men.  (2)  When  applied  to 
Jehovah,  it  may  express  any  attribute  in  Him  wdiereby  He 
manifests  Himself  to  be  God,  or  anything  about  Him  which 
is  what  we  should  name  Divine  ;  and  hence  the  name  *  Holy,' 
or  'Holy  One,'  became  the  loftiest  expression  for  Jehovah 
as  God,  or  it  expressed  God  especially  on  the  side  of  His 
majesty.  It  was  the  name  for  God  as  transcendental. 
(3)  When  applied  to  things  or  men,  it  expresses  the  idea 
that  they  belong  to  Jehovah,  are  used  in  His  service 
or  dedicated  to  Him,  or  are  in  some  special  way  His 
property. 

(1)  With  regard  to  things  and  men.  Of  course,  holy 
or  holiness  said  of  things  cannot  denote  a  moral  attribute. 
It  can  only  express  a  relation.  And  the  relation  it  ex- 
presses is,  belonging  to  Jehovah,  dedicated  to  Godhead. 
Nothing  is  holy  of  itself  or  by  nature.  And  not  every- 
thing can  be  made  holg.  Only  some  things  are  suitable. 
But  suitability  to  be  made  holy  and  holiness  are  things 
quite  distinct.  For  example,  only  clean  beasts  could  be 
devoted  to  Jehovah.  A  beast  so  devoted  is  holy.  But 
all  clean  beasts  were  not  so  devoted.  The  ideas  of  '  holy  * 
and  '  clean '  must   not  therefore  be  confounded.       Clean- 


254   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

ness  is  only  a  condition  of  holiness,  not  that  itself.  For 
example,  it  was  forbidden  to  defile  the  camp  in  the  wilder- 
ness, because  this  made  it  unfit  for  the  presence  of 
Jehovah ;  as  it  is  said,  "  That  they  defile  not  their  camps, 
in  the  midst  wiiereof  I  dwell "  (Num.  v.  3).  Every- 
thing dedicated  to  Jehovah,  and  belonging  to  Him,  was 
holy.  For  example,  the  tabernacle  where  He  dwelt  was 
called  ^"JPP  or  ^"^p,  a  holy  place.  Mount  Zion,  the  hill 
where  His  presence  in  the  tabernacle  was  manifested,  was 
a  holy  hill.  Jerusalem  was  the  holy  city.  The  sacrifices, 
as  belonging  to  Him,  were  a  holy  thing,  ^'^p.  So  were 
the  shewbread,  the  tithes,  the  oil,  tlie  first-fruits,  everything, 
in  short,  dedicated  to  Jeliovah.  In  that  which  was  holy 
there  might  be  gradations.  Thus  the  outer  part  of  the 
tabernacle  was  the  holy  place,  but  the  inner  part  was 
^""^'l^T  '^i  most  holy  place  ;  it  was  especially  dedicated  to 
God,  and  none  dared  enter  it.  So  all  flesh  offerings  were 
holy ;  but  some  were  most  holy  things,  such  as  the  sin- 
offering. 

The  meaning  does  not  seem  to  be  this,  that  these 
things  l)eing  dedicated  to  God,  this  fact  raised  in  the  mind 
a  certain  feeling  of  reverence  or  awe  for  them,  and  then 
this  secondary  quality  in  them  of  inspiring  awe  was  called 
holiness.  No  doubt  things  as  dedicated  to  God  had  this 
quality.  But  what  the  word  holy  describes  is  the  primary 
relation  of  belonging  to  Jehovah.  This  appears  from  a 
passage  in  which  those  are  described  who  are  to  be  priests, 
as  indeed  it  appears  quite  evidently  in  the  passage  where 
Israel  is  called  an  holy  nation,  which  is  parallel  to  the  other 
designation,  a  kingdom  of  priests  (Ex.  xix.  6).  Korah  and 
his  company  objected  to  the  exclusive  priesthood  of  Aaron, 
saying :  "  Ye  take  too  much  upon  you,  seeing  all  the 
congregation  are  holy,  every  one  of  them,  and  Jehovah 
is  among  them.  And  Moses  answered.  To-morrow  will 
Jehovah  show  who  are  His  and  who  are  holy  "  (Num.  xvi.  3). 
Hence  the  priests  are  said  to  be  holy  7103  Jehovah,  i.e.  they 
are  His  property  and  possession.  The  term  holy,  therefore, 
whether  applied  to  things  or  men  in  Israel,  or  to  all  Israel, 


IDEA    OF    HOLINESS  255 

signifies  that  they  are  the  possession  of  Jehovah  ;  lionce  the 
term  expresses  wliat  is  elsewhere  expressed  hy  the  word 
np3D,  a  pcculi'um,  or  'peculiar  people. 

But  naturally  with  this  idea  of  belonging  to  Jehovah 
other  ideas  are  allied.  That  wliich  is  His  is  se]mrated  out 
of  the  region  of  common  things.  Thus  in  Ezek.  xlv.  4  a 
certain  part  of  the  land,  the  portion  of  the  priests,  is  called 
r^^C'iP  ^1P>  a  lioly  thing  taken  out  of  the  land.  Hence  holy 
is  opposed  to  profane,  bn.  The  latter  word  means  that  which 
lies  open,  is  accessible,  common,  not  peculiar.  Hence  in  lioly 
there  lies  the  idea  of  being  taken  out  of  the  common  mass 
of  things,  or  men,  or  nations ;  and  with  that  naturally  the 
notion  of  being  elevated  above  the  common.  Again,  there 
quite  naturally  belongs  to  it  the  idea  of  being  inviolable,  and 
those  who  lay  their  hands  upon  it  the  Divine  nature  reacts 
against  and  destroys.  Hence  Uzzali,  who  put  out  his  hand 
to  stay  tlie  ark,  perished ;  and  likewise  those  of  Beth- 
shemesh  who  looked  into  it.  Hence  the  offerings  could  not 
be  eaten  by  any  but  the  priests,  God's  peculiar  servants. 
So  it  is  said  of  Israel  in  his  youth,  that  he  was  "a  holy 
thing  unto  the  Lord  ('^t^np),  ...  all  that  devoured  him 
incurred  guilt,  i.e.  as  putting  forth  their  hand  against  what 
was  Jehovah's  "  (Jer.  ii.  3).  Further,  it  is  quite  possible  that 
this  formal  idea  of  relation  to  Jehovah  might  gather  unto 
it,  if  I  might  say  so,  a  certain  amount  of  contents.  Only 
clean  things  could  be  dedicated  to  Jehovah.  Only  men  of 
a  character  like  His  own  could  be  His  property.  And  it 
is  possible,  therefore,  that  the  word  holy  may  occasionally 
be  used  to  cover  this  secondary  idea.  But  this  is  not  its 
primary  use,  and  in  any  case  is  rare. 

(2)  A  more  difficult  question  presents  itself  when  we 
inquire  what  is  meant  when  it  is  said,  "  Jehovah  is  holy.'* 
First,  it  is  out  of  the  question  to  say  that,  as  Israel  is  holy, 
being  dedicated  to  Jehovali,  so  Jehovah  is  holy,  as  belong- 
ing to  Israel ;  and  that  the  language,  he  ye  holy :  for  I  am 
holy,  means  nothing  more  than  "  be  mine :  for  I  am  yours." 
That  sentence  means,  at  all  events,  he  My  people :  for  I  am 
your  God.     Holy,  on  the  side  of  Israel,  meant  devoted  to 


256   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

God — not  devoted  in  general.  The  conception  of  God  was 
an  essential  part  of  the  idea.  But  this  suggests  at  once 
that  holy,  as  applied  to  Jehovah,  is  an  expression  in  some 
way  describing  Deity ;  i.e.  not  describing  Deity  on  any 
particular  side  of  His  nature,  for  which  it  is  a  fixed  term, 
but  applicable  to  Him  on  any  side,  the  manifestation  of 
which  impresses  men  with  the  sense  of  His  Divinity.  For 
instance,  Ezekiel  (xxxvi.  20)  says  of  the  heathen  among 
whom  Israel  were  dispersed,  that  they  profaned  Jehovah's 
holy  name  when  they  said  to  Israel,  "  These  are  the  people 
of  Jehovah,  and  are  gone  forth  out  of  their  land."  What 
is  implied  in  this  language  of  the  heathen  is  a  slur  upon 
the  power  of  Jehovah.  He  was  unable  to  protect  His 
people.  Hence,  they  had  gone  into  exile.  This  thought 
on  the  part  of  the  heathen  was  profanation  of  the  holy 
name  of  Jehovah,  i.e.  it  reduced  His  majesty  and  might 
to  contempt. 

Thus  the  Divine  greatness  and  power  are  elements  of 
His  '  holiness.'  Hence  He  will  '  sanctify '  His  great  name, 
i.e.  His  revealed  greatness,  by  restoring  Israel.  Again,  in  a 
similar  way,  He  sanctifies  Himself  in  Gog  by  giving  him 
over  to  destruction ;  i.e.  He  shows  Himself  by  His  power 
to  be  God  (Ezek.  xxxviii.  16).  And  thus  the  words,  "I 
will  sanctify  Myself,"  and  "  I  will  glorify  Myself,"  are  almost 
synonymous.  Compare  Lev.  x.  3,  where  it  is  said  :  "  I  will 
be  sanctified  in  them  that  come  nigh  Me,  and  before  all 
the  people  will  I  be  glorified."  So  it  is  said  in  Ps.  xcix.  3 : 
"  Let  the  nations  praise  Thy  great  and  terrible  name,  for  it 
is  holy."  So  Moses  is  chastised  because  he  failed  to  sanctify 
Jehovah's  name  at  the  waters  of  Meribah  (Num.  xx.  12,  13) 
— i.e.  failed  to  impress  upon  the  people  His  power  and  God- 
head. The  cry  of  the  seraphim  in  Isaiah  is,  "  Holy,  holy, 
holy,  the  whole  earth  is  full  of  His  glory  "  (vi.  3),  i.e.  His 
Divine  majesty  ;  and  the  word  holy  must  here  be  very  much 
the  same  as  God,  i.e.  God  in  His  majesty.  Thus  the  name 
comes  to  express  Jehovah  on  some  side  of  His  Godhead, 
I  or  perhaps  on  that  side  which,  to  men,  is  specifically  Divine, 
I    His  majesty.     Hence  the  name  becomes,  in  Isaiah  and  the 


GOD    THE    HOLY    ONE  257 

prophets  after  him,  a  name  of  Jehovah  as  God  ;  He  is  the 
Holy  One  of  Israel,  i.e.  God  in  Israel,  the  name  implying 
an  ellbrt  on  the  part  of  men's  minds  to  express  Divinity 
in  its  highest  sense.  "  Holi/  is  the  name,"  says  Baudissin, 
"  for  the  whole  Being  of  Jehovah,  God  revealed  in  Israel." 
Hence  it  may  be  used  without  the  article.  "  To  what  will 
ye  liken  Me,  saith  t^'HiJ  " — the  incomparable — -the  God  of 
majesty.  Wisdom  is  the  knowledge  of  Providence  as  the 
ways  of  God.  Hence  it  is  said  in  Proverbs,  "  I  have  not 
learned  Wisdom,  so  that  I  should  have  knowledge  of 
'C*)l\),  The  fear  of  Jehovah  is  the  beginning  of  wisdom, 
and  knowledge  of  'p  is  understanding."  ^ 

Two  points  yet  deserve  some  notice  :  first,  the  etymology ; 
and,  second,  the  extended  usage  of  the  name  to  express 
special  attributes.  The  latter  will  depend  upon  tlie  special 
character  under  which  God  is  presented  with  a  view  to 
influence  men. 

Etymology  is  rarely  a  safe  guide  to  the  real  meaning 
of  words.  Language,  as  we  have  it  in  any  literature,  lias 
already  drifted  away  far  from  the  primary  sense  of  its 
words.  Usage  is  the  only  safe  guide.  When  usage  is 
ascertained,  then  we  may  inquire  into  derivation  and  radical 
signification.  Hence  the  Concordance  is  always  a  safer 
companion  than  the  Lexicon.  The  word  C'np  is  perhaps 
related  to  other  words  beginning  with  the  same  letters,  e.g. 
kad.,  cut,  cedo,  and  the  like.  If  so,  its  meaning  would 
be  to  ott  off,  to  scimrate,  to  elevate  out  of  the  sphere  of  what 
is  ordinary  and  set  aj^art.  If  this  be  its  meaning,  we  can 
readily  perceive  how  it  came  to  be  applied  to  God.  He 
is  the  lofty,  the  heavenly,  separated  in  space  from  men — 
dwelling  on  high.  More,  He  is  the  majestic,  the  morally 
lofty,  separated  from  the  human,  not  only  as  the  finite 
material  creature,  but  particularly  as  the  sinful,  impure 
creature.  The  Hebrews  hardly  distinguish,  to  begin  with, 
the  physical  from  the  moral  attributes  of  God.  Majesty 
and  moral  purity  are  hardly  separated.  In  both  respecta 
God  is  separated  from  man  and  elevated  above  him,  and 
*  See  his  Stvdien  zur  semiiischen  Religionsgeschichtet  ii.  p.  7fi  flF. — Ed. 
17 


258   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

in  either  way  Ho  is  holy ;  and  when  men's  eyes  suddenly 
beliold  Him,  His  nature  repels  the  profanity,  and  men  die. 
If  this  was  the  line  of  thought  along  which  the  name  'p 
was  applied  to  Jehovah,  it  perhaps  follows  that  the  name 
was  imposed  upon  men  and  things  in  a  secondary  way  as 
belonging  to  Him. 

Thus  (1)  we  see  Holy  as  a  designation  of  Jehovah ; 
having  reference  to  His  Godhead,  or  to  anything  which 
was  a  manifestation  of  His  Godhead. 

(2)  We  have  it  as  used  of  men  and  things.  These 
it  describes  as  belonging  to  Jehovah,  dedicated  to  Him, 
devoted  or  set  apart  to  Him.  Primarily,  therefore,  it 
expressed  merely  the  relation. 

(3)  But  naturally  the  conception  of  dedication  to 
Jehovah  brought  into  view  Jehovah's  character,  which 
reacted  on  the  things  or  persons  devoted  to  Him.  Hence 
a  twofold  filling  up  of  the  circumference  of  the  word 
*  holy '  took  place. 

{a)  As  to  men  devoted  to  Him,  they  must  share  His 
character,  and  thus  the  term  '  holy '  took  on  a  moral  com- 
plexion. 

(b)  As  to  things,  they  must  be  fit  to  be  Jehovah's. 
Even  when  '  clean '  is  used  here  by  the  prophets,  it  denotes 
moral  purity  (Isa.  vi.  5).  Hence  the  word  took  on  what 
may  be  called  a  ceremonial  or  aesthetic  complexion ;  di tier- 
ing little  from  clean,  ceremonially  pure. 

But  the  name  as  applied  to  Jehovah  expresses  the 
efforts  made  by  the  Hebrew  mind  to  rise  to  the  conception 
of  God  as  transcendent.  It  was  the  name  for  God  abso- 
lutely. Hence  the  highest  expression  of  the  national  life 
was :  "  Be  ye  holy :  for  I  am  holy  " ;  that  is  at  first,  he  ye 
Mim :  for  I  am  God.  But  wliat  God  was  is  not  expressed. 
And  always  as  the  conception  of  God  enlarged  and  clarified, 
more  was  felt  to  lie  in  the  expression  'p ;  and  the  calling  of 
a  people  who  was  His,  was  felt  to  be  more  elevated. 

But  it  will  be  easily  seen  how  various  the  shades  of 
significance  may  be  that  lie  in  'p.  When  we  use  the  name 
God,  it  is  not  a  mere  empty  name — we  have  always  a 


A    RKiHTKOUS    PEOPLE  259 

feeling  in  the  background  of  wliab  God  is  morally,  or  in 
power  or  wisdom.  Hence  'p,  being  used  in  the  same  way, 
may,  in  certain  cases,  emphasise  special  attributes  of  God, 
according  as  circumstances  brought  these  into  prominence ; 
in  opposition,  for  example,  to  tlie  sins  of  those  who  were 
His  people,  or  tlieir  disbelief,  or  their  forgelfulness  of  their 
covenant  relation  to  Him,  or  the  like. 


4.    The  Second  Side  of  the  Covenant — the  Feojile  a 
righteous  People. 

The  two  parties  to  the  covenant  are  God  and  Israel, 
His  people.  The  covenant  was  made  with  the  people,  not 
with  individuals.  The  people  was  the  unit.  The  relation 
of  Jehovah  to  the  people  made  Him  King.  He  was  King 
of  Jacob,  the  Creator  of  Israel,  their  King  (Isa.  xliii.  15). 
And  their  relation  to  Him  was  that  of  subjects  owing 
allegiance  and  obedience.  Again,  they  were  a  peojde, 
united  by  ties  to  one  another,  and  owing  duties  to  one 
another.  Thus  conduct,  whether  of  the  nation  as  a  whole 
or  of  individuals,  was  estimated  rather  under  the  aspect 
of  civil  actions.  A  people  necessarily  forms  a  common- 
w^ealth,  and  its  conduct  was  right  when  it  fulfilled  its 
obligations  to  its  king,  and  the  conduct  of  the  individuals 
was  right  when  they  fulfilled  their  duties  to  one  anotlier. 
Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  this  King  was  Jehovah,  God  of 
Israel,  and  this  people  was  the  people  of  Jehovali.  Thus 
wdiat  might  seem  at  first  merely  civil  became  religious. 

This  second  conception  allowed  room  for  a  very  great 
deepening  of  the  idea  of  the  people's  relations  to  one 
another,  and  of  their  relation  to  their  King.  It  might  be 
made  a  question,  indeed,  which  of  the  two  conceptions,  the 
civil  or  the  religious,  was  tlie  prior  conception.  To  answer 
tliis  question  is  of  little  importance.  Probably  the  very 
asking  such  a  question  betrays  a  modern  point  of  view,  and 
one  from  whicli  the  Hebrew  mind  never  regarded  things. 
The  Hebrews  regarded  all  things  from  the  religious  point 
of  view.      Civil  government  and  the  conduct  of  men  to  one 


260   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

another  alike  belonged  to  the  religious  sphere,  with  the 
more  direct  acts  of  Divine  service.  If  we  observe  a 
progress  in  the  thinking  of  the  people  as  represented  by 
their  writers,  it  is  not  a  progress  in  the  direction  of  divid- 
ing men's  actions  into  two  spheres,  one  civil  and  the  other 
religious,  but  in  the  direction  of  a  deeper  conception  of  the 
nature  of  actions.  All  things  continued  with  them  to 
be  religious.  They  were  all  done  to  God,  but  the  con- 
ception deepened  of  what  the  meaning  of  doing  anything 
to  God  was. 

To  begin  with,  an  external  obedience  to  the  laws 
of  their  king  was  thought  religion ;  but  later  it  was  felt 
that  a  true  state  of  the  lieart  towards  God  must  go 
along  with  the  outward  act  to  make  it  right.  At  first, 
perhaps  a  citizen  considered  he  had  fulfilled  his  obligations 
to  his  fellow-citizen  when  he  gave  him  his  external  civil 
right,  when  he  was  just  to  him  ;  but  later  it  was  felt  that 
humanity  and  mercy  and  love  must  be  shown  by  one  to 
another.  There  is  always  some  danger  of  generalising  too 
hastily,  and  finding  the  steps  of  progress  from  one  idea  to 
another,  or  from  one  stage  to  another,  clearly  shown  by 
different  writers.  We  may  go  so  far  safely  enough.  We 
may  say  certain  authors  represent  this  idea,  and  certain 
others  another  idea.  An  examination  of  the  writings  of 
one  prophet  may  enable  us  to  say  with  fairness,  this  and 
not  another  is  the  prevailing  conception  in  him ;  and  in 
another  prophet  who  came  after  him  a  different  and  a 
deeper  conception  prevails.  Yet  it  may  be  hardly  safe  to 
say  that  the  deeper  conception  had  not  yet  been  reached 
in  the  time  of  the  former  prophet.  Much  may  depend  on 
his  idiosyncrasy.  And  we  require  to  move  with  very 
careful  steps  in  making  inductions  in  regard  to  the  progress 
of  ideas  in  Israel.  In  the  prophet  Amos  the  prevailing 
conception  is  that  of  righteousness.  Jehovah  is  the  right- 
eous ruler  of  men,  who  vindicates  on  all,  Israel  and  the 
heathen  alike,  the  law  of  morality.  And  what  the  prophet 
demands  from  the  people  is  righteousness — that  is,  just 
dealing  with  one  another.     "  Let  righteousness  run  down 


THE  REQUIREMENT  OF  GOODNESS       261 

your  streets  like  water"  (Amos  v.  24).  A  succeediug 
prophet,  Hosea,  has  another,  and  what  is  to  us  a  pro- 
founder,  conception.  He  abandons  the  region  of  law  and 
riglit,  and  enters  the  region  of  affection.  Jehovah  is  not 
to  him  the  rigliteous  King,  but  the  loving  father  of  Israel. 
*'  When  Israel  was  a  child,  I  loved  him,  and  called  My 
son  out  of  Egypt"  (Hos.  xi.  1).  He  is  the  husband  of 
Israel,  who  is  His  spouse.  And  He  complains  not  of  the 
want  of  righteousness  among  the  people  to  one  another, 
but  of  the  want  of  mercy,  *iDn — that  is,  humanity  in  the 
higliest  sense,  goodness,  love.  Where  Amos  says  :  "  I  will 
not  regard  your  burnt-offerings ;  but  let  justice  run  down 
as  waters,  and  righteousness  as  a  never-drying  stream " 
(v.  24),  Hosea  says :  "  I  desire  goodness,  and  not  sacrifice ; 
and  the  knowledge  of  God  more  than  burnt-ofterings " 
(vi.  6). 

Now,  undoubtedly  there  is  a  profound  advance  from 
the  one  of  these  conceptions  to  the  other.  The  former 
conception  is  not  abandoned ;  at  least  all  that  it  covered 
is  retained,  but  reduced  under  a  more  religious  idea.  And 
a  succeeding  prophet,  Micah,  combines  the  ideas  together : 
"  What  doth  the  Lord  desire  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly,  and 
to  love  mercy  " — ion — goodness  ?  (vi.  8).  Yet  we  might 
go  too  far  in  saying  that  the  idea  of  Hosea  was  wholly 
new ;  for  even  Samuel  had  said :  "  To  obey  is  better  than 
sacrifice,  and  to  hearken  than  the  fat  of  rams"  (1  Sam. 
XV.  22).  And  had  we  fuller  records,  we  might  find  among 
earlier  prophets  much  that  seems  to  us  now  the  con- 
ceptions of  later  ones.  We  cannot  be  wrong,  however,  in 
signalising  certain  prophets  as  the  great  expounders  of 
certain  conceptions,  though  we  may  find  in  their  idiosyn- 
crasies and  their  circumstances  some  explanation  of  tlieir 
giving  such  ideas  so  great  prominence. 

We  found  that  what  brought  perfection  to  the  people 
of  God,  so  far  as  that  depended  on  God  and  tlie  Divine 
side  of  the  covenant,  was  the  presence  of  God  in  His 
fulness  among  the  peijple.  Sometimes  this  presence  is 
His  presence  in  the  Messianic  king,  and  sometimes  it  is 


262   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

His  presence,  so  to  speak,  in  Himself.  These  two  lines 
cannot,  of  course,  remain  separate ;  and  the  New  Testament 
unites  them  in  one  by  making  those  passages  which  speak 
of  the  Lord's  presence  in  His  own  Person,  also  to  be  Messi- 
anic passages.  In  doing  so  the  New  Testament  writers 
stand  on  history.  They  have  the  history  of  Jesus  behind 
them,  and  this  history  has  interpreted  much  of  the  Old 
Testament  to  them.  That  splendid  passage,  Isa.  xl.  1-11, 
which  speaks  of  Jehovah  coming  in  strength,  i.e.  in  His 
fulness,  and  feeding  His  flock  like  a  shepherd,  is  interpreted 
in  the  Gospels  of  the  Son.  It  was  in  the  Son,  or  as  the 
Son,  that  Jehovah  so  manifested  Himself.  By  the  Old 
Testament  prophet  a  distinction  in  the  Godhead  was  not 
thought  of;  but  subsequent  revelation  casts  light  on  the 
preceding.  The  Lord,  the  Eedeemer  and  Judge,  is  God  in 
the  Son. 

Now  the  perfection  of  the  covenant  relation  was 
reached  when  Jehovah  thus  came  in  His  fulness  among  His 
people.  It  is  difficult  to  realise  what  idea  the  Old  Testa- 
ment prophets  had  of  this — how  they  conceived  Jehovah 
present.  They  are  obliged  to  adopt  figures.  His  glory  is 
seen,  and  physical  images  are  employed  to  body  out  the 
spiritual  ideas.  The  most  brilliant  pictures  are  in  the 
second  half  of  Isaiah.  But  there  are  some  passages  in 
this  book  where  the  prophet  seems  to  show  us  what  in 
his  less  exalted,  or  at  all  events  more  realistic,  moments 
he  probably  really  conceived  Jehovah's  presence  to  be.  In 
xliv.  23  he  says:  "The  Lord  hath  redeemed  Jacob,  and 
glorified  Himself  in  Israel."  In  xlix.  3  :  "  Thou  art  My 
servant,  0  Israel,  in  whom  I  will  glorify  Myself."  In 
Ix.  1,  3  :  "Arise,  shine  ...  for  the  glory  of  the  Lord  is 
risen  upon  thee  .  .  .  And  the  Gentiles  shall  come  to  thy 
light."  Tliese  passages  would  seem  to  imply  that  Jehovah 
is  presented  in  His  presence  through  Israel  itself,  not  as 
an  independent  glory ;  the  glory  of  Israel  is  His  glory. 
He  and  Israel  are  not  two,  but  glorified  Israel  reflects 
His  glory.  And  there  is  a  singular  passage  (xlv.  14,  15) 
which  perhaps  confirms  this  view :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord, 


THE  SERVANT  OF  THE  LORD         263 

The  labour  of  Egypt,  iiiercliaiidisc  of  Ktlii(»])ia  and  of  Uio 
Sabeans,  men  of  sUiture,  sliall  coiiio  over  unto  thee  .  .  . 
they  shall  fall  down  unto  thee  .  .  .  saying,  Surely  God  is 
in  thee.  .  .  .  Verily  thou  art  a  God  that  hidest  Thyself,  O 
God  of  Israel,  the  Saviour." 

It  is  worth  observing  here  that  the  Servant  of  the 
Lord,  whomsoever  that  remarkable  conception  represents 
in  the  mind  of  the  prophet,  does  not  appear  as  a  distinct 
personage  among  Israel  redeemed.  He  either  is  Israel 
redeemed,  or  he  is  not  considered  separately  from  them 
in  their  condition  of  glorified  redemption.  In  chap.  liii. 
Israel  redeemed  looks  back  upon  the  time  when  he  was 
among  them  in  his  humility,  and  they  confess  how  sadly 
they  misapprehended  him.  "  Who  believed  what  we 
heard  ?  and  to  whom  did  the  arm  of  the  Lord  manifest 
itself  ?  .  .  .  We  thought  him  smitten,  and  afflicted  of 
God ;  but  it  was  our  sins  that  he  bore :  by  his  wounds  we 
have  been  healed."  But  after  chap.  liii.  the  servant  does 
not  appear,  except  perhaps  in  chap.  Ixi.  1,  2,  a  passage 
the  point  of  view  of  which  is  anterior  to  the  redemption : 
"  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me ;  because  he  hath 
anointed  me  to  proclaim  liberty  to  the  captive ;  .  .  . 
to  proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord,  the  day  of 
vengeance  of  our  God."  The  prophet,  after  chap,  liii., 
speaks  no  more  of  the  Servant  of  the  Lord,  but  of  the 
servants  of  the  Lord — the  people  are  all  righteous,  and 
taught  of  God ;  while  before  he  spoke  of  "  my  righteous 
servant,  whose  ear  was  opened  as  that  of  one  taught " 
(1.  4).  Perhaps  this  point  is  in  favour  of  those  who 
think  that  the  Servant  of  the  Lord  is  not  an  individual. 
If  an  individual,  it  is  strange  that  he  wholly  disappears 
when  Israel  is  ransomed  through  his  great  suf'I'erings.  We 
should  expect  him  to  be  at  the  head  of  the  people.  But 
the  people  have  no  head  but  Jehovah  Himself.  There  is 
a  very  remarkable  passage  in  chap.  Iv.  3  f.,  where  the  people 
are  addressed  :  "  Incline  your  ear,  and  come  unto  me  .  .  . 
and  I  will  make  an  everlasting  covenant  with  you,  even  the 
sui'e  mercies  of  David.     Behold,  I  made  him  a  witness  to 


264   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

the  peoples,  a  leader  and  commaDder  of  the  peoples.  Behold, 
thou  shalt  call  nations  that  thou  knowest  not,  and  nations 
that  know  not  thee  shall  run  after  thee  for  the  sake  of 
Jehovah  thy  God,  and  for  the  Holy  One  of  Israel ;  for  He 
hath  glorified  thee."  Here  the  people,  redeemed  and 
glorified,  are  served  heirs  to  the  great  promises  made  to 
David. 

There  is  one  other  point  here  which  I  need  only  touch 
upon.  The  place  of  Israel  glorified  and  of  God  present  is, 
of  course,  in  all  the  Old  Testament  writers  the  earth.  God 
descends ;  His  tabernacle  is  among  men ;  men  are  not 
translated  into  heaven.  The  earth  is  transfigured,  but 
it  remains  the  earth,  and  abode  of  men.  There  is  a  new 
heavens  and  a  new  earth,  but  the  two  are  still  distinct ;  and 
the  new  earth  is  the  inheritance  of  the  saints.  Of  course, 
the  conceptions  of  prophets  are  very  various  on  this  final 
condition  of  things.  It  was  not  given  to  them  to  see 
clearly  here. 

Now  the  word  that  describes  the  proper  condition  of 
the  people  on  their  side  of  the  covenant  relation  is 
righteous.  The  difference  between  '  holy  '  and  '  righteous  ' 
must  be  observed.  '  Holy,'  ^^ip,  is  a  term  that  expresses 
the  being  in  covenant.  It  is  equal  to  belonging  to  God,  i.e. 
being  His  people ;  but  rigJiteoiis  expresses  the  condition 
morally  of  those  who  are  His  people.  This  latter  is  the 
word  that  describes  how  the  people  should  be  at  all  times, 
and  how  it  shall  be  at  the  end.  And  Isaiah  mourn- 
fully exclaims :  "  How  is  the  city  that  was  faithful  become 
an  harlot !  she  in  which  righteousness  dwelt ;  but  now 
murderers"  (i.  21).  And  in  the  later  chapters  of  the 
book  it  is  said  of  the  restored  and  perfected  Israel :  "  Thy 
people  shall  be  all  righteous"  (Ix.  21);  "They  shall  be 
called  trees  of  righteousness,  the  planting  of  our  God,  that 
He  might  be  glorified  "  (Ixi.  3) ;  and  again  :  "  Ye  shall  be 
named  the  priests  of  the  Lord ;  men  shall  call  you  the 
ministers  of  our  God  "  (Ixi.  6) ;  and  again  :  "  I  will  greatly 
rejoice  in  the  Lord  ...  He  hath  covered  me  with  the 
robe   of    righteousness,   as   a  bridegroom   decketh   himself 


TERMS    FOR    RIGHTEOUSNESS  265 

with  ornaments"  (Ixi.  10).  It  is  (>l)vious  ilial  tlie  term 
'  righteousness '  is  one  that  admits  of  considerable  variety 
of  use,  and  may  cover  wider  or  narrower  meanings.  We 
may  refer  a  little  to  the  usage  of  the  word ;  and,  second, 
to  the  general  idea  conveyed  in  the  expression  "  the 
people  shall  be  righteous."  We  shall  inquire  what  this 
means  when  said  of  the  people  on  their  side  of  the 
covenant. 

(1)  As  to  the  usage  of  the  words  P"]?,  P'lV,  p^v,  and 
ni^'iY — verb,  adj.,  and  noun. 

In  general,  we  may  remark  that  the  radical  idea  of 
these  words  is  extremely  difficult  to  detect.  Most  Hebrew 
words  now  applied  to  express  ethical  conceptions  expressed, 
no  doubt,  originally  physical  ideas.  In  some  cases  we  can 
reach  these  original  conceptions.  For  example,  the  word 
1^^,  translated  upright,  means  '  plain '  or  '  level,'  in  a 
physical  sense.  Perhaps  the  radical  idea  in  K'ilp  is  "  cut 
off,  separated,  removed  to  a  distance."  But  the  radical 
notion  of  pnv  seems  not  to  have  survived.  There  is  prob- 
ably no  passage  in  the  Old  Testament  where  it  can  be 
detected.  Some,  indeed,  have  thought  they  found  it  in 
Ps.  xxiii.  3,  P'3>!'7?V^,  "paths  of  righteousness,"  i.e.  even  or 
straight  paths;  but  it  is  probable  that  there  the  meaning 
is  the  same  as  in  other  passages — "  right  paths "  or 
"  righteous  paths,"  i.e.  such  paths  as  are  conformable, 
appropriate  to  the  requirements  of  sheep,  or  paths  which 
are  righteous,  the  figure  being  deserted.  In  Arabic  the 
root  means  "  to  be  true,"  i.e.  to  correspond  to  the  idea  and 
reality.  The  lexicographers,  with  some  subtlety,  say  that 
a  man  to  speak  sidq  must  not  only  say  what  conforms  to 
the  reality,  but  at  the  same  time  what  conforms  to  the 
idea  in  his  own  mind.  Thus,  if  a  man  said :  "  Muhammed 
is  the  prophet  of  God,"  that,  to  be  sidq  or  truth,  must  not 
only  correspond  to  the  fact,  which  of  course  it  does,  but 
also  to  his  own  idea,  i.e.  he  must  also  believe  it.  Lexico- 
graphical subtleties  of  this  kind  are  rarely  very  helpful ; 
it  is  safer,  first  of  all,  to  look  to  usage.  Then  it  is  possible 
that  etymology  may  give  an  idea  that  binds  the  usages  into 


266   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

one,  or  give  a  stem  conception  out  of  wliich  all  the  other 
conceptions  may  he  seen  to  have  branched  off. 

If  we  consider  now,  first  of  all,  the  verb  P^J,  imperf. 
P"^>*\  which  is  often  translated  shall  he  justified  in  English, 
as  in  Gr.  hiKaiwOrjaerat,  we  find  that  the  proper  sense  of  it 
is,  to  be  right,  to  be  in  the  right,  to  have  right  on  one's 
side.  The  idea  is  juridical,  or,  as  it  is  called,  forensic — 
belonging  to  the  forum,  or  court  of  law.  The  Hebrews 
were  fond  of  this  conception,  when  a  question  arose 
between  two  persons,  or  when  one  blamed  another,  or 
the  like ;  the  parties  were  very  readily  conceived  as  parties 
to  a  suit  before  a  judge.  And  when  one  defended  another 
in  any  way,  he  was  said  to  plead  his  cause.  Thus  Jehovah 
summons  the  nations  and  their  gods  to  an  imaginary 
tribunal :  "  Let  them  draw  near ;  let  us  enter  into  judg- 
ment together  (Isa.  xli.  1).  And  so  w^hen  the  people  are 
conceived  as  having  a  plea  which  they  can  bring  forward 
of  being  true  to  the  covenant  obligations,  the  Lord  says : 
"  Let  us  plead  together ;  declare  thou  that  thou  mayest  be 
justified "  (xliii.  26).  Now  the  verb  P7^'  was  said  of  the 
person  who  in  such  a  real  or  imaginary  plea  was  found  by 
the  real  or  supposed  judge  to  be  in  the  right,  to  have  right 
on  his  side.  Examples  of  this  do  not  need  to  be  multiplied. 
The  one  just  cited  from  Isaiah  is  a  good  instance :  declare 
PIV^  ly^^ ;  here  there  is  no  question  of  ethical  righteous- 
ness, but  of  simple  juridical  right — having  right  on  one's 
side.  And,  similarly,  the  passage  in  xliii.  9  :  "  Let  them 
bring  forward  their  witnesses "  {i.e.  witnesses  of  their  pre- 
dictions), "  that  they  be  justified,"  found  to  have  right,  in 
this  contested  matter,  on  their  side. 

This  is  the  idea  of  the  simple  stem.  The  causative 
or  Hiphil  agrees  in  meaning  ;  it  is  to  find  in  the  right, 
to  find,  in  one's  action  as  a  judge,  a  person  to  have  right 
on  his  side ;  or,  with  other  modifications,  such  as  to  regard 
one  as  in  the  right,  or  to  treat  one  as  in  the  right ;  as, 
e.g.,  "  I  will  not  justify  the  wicked  '■  (Ex.  xxiii.  7) — treat 
the  V^l  as  P^'^V  Of  course,  as  a  judge  finds  this  by 
declaring   it,   the   sense   may  be   to   declare   one  to   have 


THE   SENSE   OF   JUSTIFYING  267 

right  on  his  side ;  but,  properly,  it  is  to  find  that  one 
is  in  tlie  right.  It  does  not  mean  to  make  a  man 
ethically  pure.  There  seems  no  passage  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment where  such  a  sense  is  possible,  except,  perhaps, 
Dan.  viii.  14.  To  find  right,  or  in  the  right,  is  the  mean- 
ing of  the  Hipli.,  or  to  justify ;  or,  with  slightly  different 
shades  of  meaning,  to  declare  to  be  in  the  right,  or  show 
to  have  right  on  one's  side.  Thus  the  Servant  of  the 
Lord  (1.  8)  exclaims :  "  He  is  near  that  justifieth  me,"  2i"i|J 
V^iv^o ;  "  who  will  enter  a  i)lea  against  me  ? "  Qr\^  ^^T,  ^p). 
And  in  words  almost  identical.  Job — whom  God  calls 
"  ^ly  servant " — says  :  "  I  know  that  I  shall  be  found  in 
the  right  (P^V^) ;  who  is  he  that  will  enter  a  plea  with 
me?"  (xiii.  18^  19). 

Now  this  is  a  general  mode  of  conception,  applicable 
in  a  hundred  ways.  Any  question,  or  charge,  or  claim 
may  be  brought  under  this  juridical  idea.  The  point 
on  which  a  man  may  be  arraigned,  or  suppose  himself 
arraigned,  may  be  a  trifle — a  point  of  etiquette,  or  the 
question  of  his  life  before  God.  To  be  in  the  right,  or 
to  have  right  on  his  side,  may  be  equally  various :  it 
may  be  in  a  matter  of  speech,  as  speaking  truth  or  no ; 
a  matter  of  custom  or  consuetudinary  law ;  a  matter  of 
common  morals ;  or  a  matter  of  his  relation  to  God.  The 
standard  may  be  simply  a  fact,  or  any  understood  norm 
or  rule,  whether  human  or  Divine,  according  to  which 
conduct  is  measured.  When  Judah  said  in  regard  to 
Tamar  the  harlot  ''3?3p  np"iv  "  she  is  in  her  rights  as  against 
me"  (Gen.  xxxviii.  26),  and  when  the  Psalmist  cries:  "In 
Thy  sight  shall  no  man  living  be  justified "  (P'^.^'')'  '^•^-  be 
right,  or  found  in  the  right  (Ps.  cxliii.  3),  they  both  use 
the  word  in  the  same  sense,  although  the  spheres  referred 
to  are  widely  apart.  There  is  always  a  standard,  always  a 
cause ;  a  man's  conduct  in  a  particular  matter,  or  his  life 
as  a  whole,  is  in  question  ;  and  there  is  always  a  judge,  real 
or  imaginary.  The  standard  may  be  very  various,  so  may 
be  the  point  or  cause ;  the  person  is  pnv  when,  before  the 
judge,  his  act  or  life  is  in  correspondence  with  the  standard. 


268   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

Of  course,  in  many  cases  the  standard  itself  may  be  con- 
ceived as  the  judge,  as  when  a  man  is  condemned  by  his 
conscience,  or  by  tlie  popular  customs,  or  by  the  principles 
of  the  covenant.  Two  passages  in  Job  illustrate  the 
flexibility  of  the  usage  in  the  higher  sphere.  Elipliaz, 
arguing  against  Job's  complaints,  says :  "  Shall  mortal  man 
be  just  (P"nv^)  with  God?"  (iv.  17),  i.e.  be  found  in  the 
right  as  to  his  life.^  To  which  Job  replies :  "  Of  course 
I  know  that  it  is  so.  How  should  man  be  just  with  God  ?  " 
(ix.  2).  Eliphaz  means  that,  brought  to  God's  bar,  no  man 
will  be  found  righteous ;  Job  means,  no  man  can  make  his 
righteousness,  though  he  have  it,  valid  against  God,  or  at 
God's  bar,  He  being  unwilling  that  he  should ;  because 
His  omnipotent  power  will  hinder  man  from  sustaining 
his  cause.  "  I  know  that  I  have  to  be  guilty,"  he  else- 
where exclaims  (ix.  15,  20).  Thus  it  may  be  said  in 
regard  to  this  verb:  (1)  that  it  is  not  much  in  use  in  the 
older  language;  (2)  that  it  is  always  used  of  persons; 
(3)  that  it  means  to  be  in  the  right,  according  to  some 
standard,  chiefly  in  a  juridical  sense ;  and  (4)  that  this 
standard  being  sometimes  the  general  law  of  conduct,  the 
moral  law,  the  word  shows  a  tendency  to  be  used  of  this 
conformity,  or  as  we  use  righteous  in  an  ethical  sense,  the 
juridical  idea  falling  away.  This  tendency  shows  itself 
more  and  more  in  the  language,  i.e.  the  standard  becomes 
more  and  more  the  great  general  principles  of  morals  and 
religion. 

Now  the  same  things  can  be  said  in  general  of  the 
adjective  p-^V  righteous,  in  regard  to  which  we  need  only 
remark  :  (1)  that  it  is  never  used  in  the  feminine  ;  a  curious 
fact,  explained,  perhaps,  by  the  primary  use  being  juridical, 
where  the  interests  of  men  alone  came  into  discussion — 
and  it  is  only  used  of  persons,  with  perhaps  one  exception 

^  On  the  interpretation  of  Job  iv.  17  see  the  author's  The  Book  of  Job, 
with  Notes,  etc.  ("Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools  and  Colleges"),  p.  33,  where 
he  briefly  discusses  the  competing  renderings,  and  decides  on  the  whole  for 
Can  man  he  righteous  before  God?  This,  he  thinks,  is  most  in  harmony  with 
the  time  at  which  the  charge  conies  in,  the  scope  of  the  following  verseS,  and 
the  general  aphorisu)  in  v.  6,  7. — Ed. 


STANDARD    OF    RIGHT  269 

(Dent.  iv.  «S) ;  and  (2)  the  ethical  notion  hegins  to  prevail 
over  the  juridical. 

The  use  of  the  nouns  p'lV  and  '^P'^V,  which  hardly  differ 
in  their  general  meaning,  is  of  great  interest,  especially  in 
Isaiah.  The  same  general  idea  belongs  to  this  word — that 
which  has  the  quality  of  P'lV,  which  is  conformable  to  a  norm 
or  standard.  This  appears  most  plainly,  first  of  all,  when 
the  word  is  predicated  of  things  like  measures  and  weights, 
e.g.  'v  DD^N  a  righteous  ephah,  'v  ''JaN  righteous  weights, 
'v  ''JTN*b  a  right  balance.  Our  word  right  perhaps  comes 
nearest  to  the  meaning,  i.e.  conformable  to  the  idea  of  an 
ephah,  weights  and  balances.  So  Ps.  iv.  5,  'v  ^n^r,  right  sacri- 
fices, such  sacrifices  as  are  agreeable  to  the  idea  of  sacrifice. 
Perhaps  even  'v  tDQ^b,  right  judgment,  judgment  such  as  it 
should  be.  Here  again  the  norm  or  standard  may  vary 
indefinitely.  That  has  the  characteristic  of  'v  in  any  sphere 
which  corresponds  to  the  admitted  norm  in  that  sphere — 
whatever  is  right  according  to  an  understood  standard. 

The  transition  from  this  to  conduct  or  actions  is  easy. 
The  standard  may  be  propriety,  popular  custom,  what  is 
due  socially,  or  what  is  required  in  morals  or  religion. 
Naturally,  in  judging  of  actions,  the  last  named  standards 
will  be  those  that  are  chiefly  thought  of.  But  as  the 
standard  deepens  in  its  idea,  righteousness  will  also  acquire 
more  inwardness  and  condensation.  When  said  of  men, 
the  use  of  the  word  is  readily  understood,  and  hardly  needs 
illustration. 

But  there  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  same  general 
idea  appears  when  'v  is  predicated  of  God.  The  point  of 
difficulty  here  is  naturally  to  discover  the  standard  by 
which  the  action  of  God  is  estimated.  There  appears  in 
the  mind  of  the  prophets,  when  they  speak  even  of  God, 
the  generel  feeling  tliat  there  is  a  moral  standard  which  is 
not  merely  God's  will.  Proljably  a  ditlerence  between  this 
standard  and  God's  will  rarely  occurred  to  them — the  two 
coincided.  But  there  appears  the  feeling  of  the  existence 
of  such  a  standard.  Even  Abraham  says :  "  Shall  not  the 
Judge  of  all  the  earth  do  right?"  (ddc'^d,  Gen.  xviii.  25). 


270   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

And  ill  the  Book  of  Job,  the  most  inoderii  of  Hebrew 
books  in  its  ways  of  thinking,  Job  openly  charges  God 
with  injustice ;  and  in  one  remarkable  passage  the  patri- 
arch proclaims  his  resolution  to  adhere  to  righteousness, 
though  God  and  man  alike  should  show  themselves  un- 
just (xxvii.  5,  6).  But  usually  such  a  distinction  probaljly 
was  not  drawn.  God's  will  and  action  coincided  with 
righteousness,  and  God's  will  was  the  norm  of  righteous- 
ness on  that  account  practically,  without  its  being  the 
soun^e  of  it  absolutely,  or  to  be  identified  with  it.  When 
God's  actions,  therefore,  were  estimated,  they  were  naturally 
judged  by  the  same  standard  as  was  applied  when  men's 
were  judged.  God  acted  righteously  when  He  acted  as 
a  just  man  would  have  acted  in  the  circumstances.  This 
makes  His  righteousness  often  to  be  what  is  called  retri- 
butive righteousness.      And  this  is  a  common  usage. 

But  in  such  passages  as  those  in  the  second  half  of 
Isaiah  manifestly  this  sense  will  not  suit.  God's  righteous- 
ness there  is  a  course  of  action  conformable  to  a  rule ;  but 
the  rule  is  not  that  of  the  general  law  of  morals.  The 
word  belongs  to  another  sphere,  namely,  the  redemptive 
sphere.  The  standard  is  not  the  moral  law  in  God's  mind 
as  sovereign  ruler  ;  but  some  other  standard  in  His  mind  as 
God  of  salvation.  When  He  acts  according  to  this  standard, 
the  attribute  of  'v  belongs  to  Him  or  to  His  actions.  Now 
this  standard,  of  course,  might  be  a  general  purpose  in  His 
mind  in  regard  to  Israel,  in  which  case  the  standard  would 
be  the  covenant  relation.  He  acts  'V3  when  He  acts  as  it 
becomes  God  in  covenant  with  Israel.  As  the  covenant 
was  a  redemptive  one,  this  comes  to  much  the  same  thing 
as  to  say  that  He  acts  as  the  God  of  salvation.  The 
interesting  point,  however,  is  whether  the  idea  of  the 
prophet  has  not  gone  so  far  as  to  rise  to  this  as  the  true 
conception  of  God.  The  purpose  of  salvation  is  not  a 
purpose  which  He  has  formed,  but  is  the  expression  of  His 
very  Being.  It  is  His  characteristic  as  God.  When  the 
prophet  says  of  Cyrus  :  "  I  have  raised  him  up  in  ''i,"  that 
might  very  well  be  simply  "  in  the  region  of  a  redemptive 


RIGHTEOUSNESS   IN    THE    PEOPLE  271 

purpose"  (Tsa.  xlv.  13).  And  so  when  \*  calls  one  to 
follow  it,  or  when  God  calls  him  in  'v  to  follow  Him,  as 
He  elsewhere  speaks  of  going  before  him.  So  when  He 
says  to  Israel,  "I  have  chosen  thee;  I  strengtlien  thee;  T 
uphold  tlieo  witli  the  right  hand  of  My  righteousness" 
(Tsa.  xli.  10),  this  might  mean  that  He  acts  to  Israel  on 
the  lines  of  His  relation  to  Israel  and  of  His  purpose. 
And  with  this  agree  the  many  passages  where  'v  is 
parallel  to  salvation  :  "  My  salvation  is  near  to  come,  and 
My  righteousness  to  be  manifested  "  (Ivi.  1 ). 

But  there  are  other  passages  which  seem  to  go  further, 
and  to  show  that  Jehovah's  actions,  which  are  'V3,  were 
some  of  them  anterior  to  His  relation  to  Israel,  and 
that  His  forming  this  relation  illustrated  His  'v — in  other 
words,  they  rise  to  the  elevation  of  making  the  salvation 
of  Israel,  and  through  Israel  that  of  the  world,  to  be  the 
thing  which  is  conformable  to  the  Being  of  Jehovah,  and 
expresses  it.  For  instance,  Jehovah  says  to  Israel :  "  I  have 
called  thee  in  righteousness  " — the  entering  into  covenant 
with  Israel  was  in  'v  (xlii.  6).  And  in  a  remarkable 
passage,  xlv.  18:"  Thus  saith  the  Lord  that  created  the 
heavens ;  He  is  God,  that  formed  the  earth ;  He  made  it 
to  be  inhabited.  I  have  sworn  by  Myself  that  to  Me  every 
knee  shall  bow ;  look  unto  Me,  and  be  saved,  all  the  ends 
of  the  eartli."  Here  the  salvation  of  the  world  and  the 
original  creation  are  brought  together,  and  the  first  seems 
anterior  in  idea  to  the  second. 


5.  Righteousness  in  the  People, 

The  Old  Testament  runs  out  its  idea  of  the  final 
state  and  perfection  of  the  kingdom  of  God  and  its 
universality,  more  on  the  external  side,  in  events  and  in 
the  relations  of  the  nationalities  of  the  world  to  one 
another  and  to  the  Church.  The  various  prophets  differ 
according  to  their  circumstances  in  their  idea  how  the 
relations  of  Israel  and  tlie  nations  were  to  be  adjusted. 
In  all,  however,  the  heathen  are   brought  into  a  relation 


272   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

of  submission  and  subordination  to  Israel ;  the  Church  at 
last  overcomes  and  absorbs  the  heathen  world. 

In  the  same  way  the  relations  of  the  various  classes 
within  Israel  are  finally  adjusted,  as  at  the  day  of  the 
Lord.  All  evil  is  judged  and  destroyed — the  people  are 
all  righteous.  And  with  the  perfection  of  the  Church 
comes  in  also  the  perfect  state  of  creation.  The  earth 
yields  her  increase ;  there  is  abundance  of  corn  even  on 
the  tops  of  the  mountains ;  it  shakes  like  Lebanon — the 
desert  blossoms  like  the  rose,  and  God's  blessing  is  upon 
the  people  (Ps.  Ixxii.  16  ;  Isa.  xxxv.  1). 

Of  course,  all  Old  Testament  prophecies  are  written 
from  the  point  of  view  of  things  as  they  then  were,  when 
Israel  alone  was  the  Church,  and  the  nations  were  outside 
the  covenant.  And  one  of  the  most  interesting  and  also 
most  difficult  tasks  of  the  interpreter  of  prophecy  is  to 
decide  how  much  of  the  prophetic  form  may  have  to  be 
stripped  off  when  applying  the  prophecies  to  our  own 
dispensation.  In  the  days  of  the  Apostle  Paul  a  state  of 
things  had  entered  that  seemed  almost  the  reverse  of  the 
state  of  things  which  formed  the  point  of  view  from 
which  the  Old  Testament  was  written.  Israel  seemed  no 
more  the  Church,  but  outside  of  it.  And  this  state  of 
things  raised  the  question  to  him  in  one  way  as  it  does  to 
us  in  general,  how  the  prophecies  in  regard  to  Israel  were 
to  be  fulfilled.  He  fell  back  on  the  covenant ;  the  gifts 
and  calling  of  God  are  without  repentance.  The  covenant 
formed  with  Israel  secured  their  presence  in  the  Church. 
The  Church  was  indeed  founded  in  Israel,  which  was  the 
stock  into  which  Gentiles  were  only  grafted  in.  The 
natural  branches  broken  off  should  be  grafted  in  again,  and 
all  Israel  should  be  saved  (Rom.  xi.).  On  the  spiritual 
side  alone  is  it  that  the  apostle's  reasoning  is  carried  on. 
This  leaves  us  without  any  guide  so  far  as  restoration  to 
the  land  is  concerned.  We  are  thrown  upon  general 
considerations  suggested  hy  the  ways  of  God  upon  the 
whole. 

But  how  does  the  Old  Testament  run  out  its  idea  of 


RIGHTEOUSNESS   AS    CONDUCT  273 

the  consummation  of  the  kingdom  of  God  on  the  inner 
side — through  such  media  as  redempti(m  from  sin,  riglit- 
eousness,  and  innnoitahty  ?  Only  very  general  statements 
can  be  made  on  this,  at  least  on  the  two  points  of  right- 
eousness and  sin.  And  in  the  Old  Testament  itself  we 
need  not  look  for  more  than  general  statements  here.  We 
need  not  look  for  such  dogmatic  passages  as  are  found  in 
tlie  Epistles  of  St.  Paul.  The  truth  will  be  everywhere 
expressed  in  connection  with  concrete  instances.  The 
points  of  interest  will  be  whether  the  truth,  so  far  as  it 
is  expressed,  agrees  with  the  teacliing  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  how  far  it  is  expressed. 

(1)  Righteousness. — If  we  look  at  the  point  of  righteous- 
ness in  the  Old  Testament,  we  find  this  quite  generally 
conceived  at  first.  It  is  looked  at  always  as  manifesting 
itself  in  concrete  cases,  and  as  consisting  in  conduct.  No 
doubt  there  are  always  two  presuppositions  ;  these  are,  first, 
the  idea  of  God,  to  whom  men  are  related ;  and,  second,  the 
idea  of  a  moral  order,  binding  on  men  in  their  relations  to 
one  another.  These  two  ideas  always  go  together.  For 
a  moral  order  of  which  God  is  not  the  Guardian  and 
Upholder  does  not  occur  to  Old  Testament  thinkers.  No 
doubt,  in  the  Book  of  Job — the  most  modern,  perhaps,  if 
again  I  may  use  the  expression,  of  Old  Testament  creations 
— such  an  idea  as  that  of  a  moral  order  in  which  God  is 
not  the  Guardian  is  found.  The  sufferer  there  gives 
expression  to  it — momentary  expression,  however,  only. 
Conscious  of  his  rectitude,  and  yet  receiving  no  recognition 
of  it  from  God,  but,  on  the  contrary,  being  plagued  every 
day,  he  is  forced  to  the  conviction  that  God  is  an  arbitrary 
and  unrighteous  tyrant.  Eectitude  does  not  find  lier  home 
and  support  in  God.  And  Job  rises  to  the  highest 
grandeur  to  which  he  attains,  when  he  declares  that, 
though  God  be  unrighteous,  he  at  least  will  not  let  go 
his  righteousness,  but  hold  by  it  all  the  more  firmly : 
"  The  righteous  shall  hold  on  his  way,  and  he  that  hath 
clean  hands  shall  wax  stronger  and  stronger  "  (xvii.  9). 

But  ordinarily  the  ideas  of  God  and  the  moral  order 
i8 


274   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

of  life  C(Mncide.  And  to  be  righteous  is  to  be  found  in 
practical  harmony  in  one's  conduct  with  this  moral  order. 
Hence  on  the  widest  scale  Israel  is  tlie  righteous  nation  in 
opposition  to  tlie  heathen  nations.  And  God's  deeds  in 
behalf  of  Israel  are  righteous  acts ;  as  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment the  great  saviours  of  the  people  are  said,  wlieu  their 
deeds  in  behalf  of  Israel  are  referred  to,  to  have  '  wrought 
righteousness.'  On  a  smaller  scale,  those  who  live  in 
harmony  with  the  public  law  and  customs  of  Israel  are 
called  *  righteous,'  in  opposition  to  those  whose  life  is  not 
governed  by  such  principles — who  are  wicked  (°V^'"!).  Hence 
an  offence  is  what  ought  not  to  be  done,  or,  more  exactly, 
offences  are  things  not  done  in  Israel ;  and  the  doing  of 
them  is  to  work  folly  in  Israel.  They  contradict  the 
public  conscience  and  law ;  in  many  instances  an  un- 
written law,  which  was  regulative  of  the  people's  life,  and 
the  standard  of  righteousness. 

Eighteousness  consisted  in  a  right  attitude  towards  the 
existing  constitution,  and  in  conduct  in  harmony  with  its 
traditions.  This  general  idea  of  righteousness  as  practical 
conduct  in  harmony  with  the  laws  of  the  constitution, 
explains  several  things.  For  one  thing,  it  enables  us  to 
understand  how  saints  are  found  making  such  strong 
assertions  of  their  own  righteousness,  claiming  from  God 
the  recognition  of  it,  and  appealing  to  His  righteousness 
as  that  in  Him  which  should  make  Him  interfere  on  their 
behalf :  "  Hear  me  when  I  call,  God  of  my  righteousness  " 
(Ps.  iv.  1);  "Judge  me,  0  God,  according  to  my  right- 
eousness, and  according  to  mine  integrity  that  is  in  me" 
(Ps.  vii.  8)  ;  "  Hear  the  right,  0  Lord  "  (Ps.  xvii.  1) ;  "  The 
Lord  has  rewarded  me  according  to  my  righteousness, 
according  to  the  cleanness  of  my  hands  hath  He  recom- 
pensed me"  (Ps.  xviii.  20).  And  even  in  Isaiah  tlie 
Church  complains,  "  my  right  is  passed  over  by  my  God  " 
(xl.  27)  It  is  prolmbly  quite  true  that  here  we  discover 
a  state  of  mind  which  we  should  find  no  more  in  our  dis- 
pensation ;  and  that  where  an  Old  Testament  saint  appeals 
to  God's  righteousness,  we  should  rather  make  our  appeal 


RIGHTEOUSNESS    AND    GRACE  275 

to  His  grace.  Yet  tlie  point  of  view  of  those  Old  Testa- 
ment saints  must  be  understood.  Otherwise  we  should 
judge  them  unfairly,  and  put  them  on  a  lower  level  than 
that  on  which  they  stand.  They  stand  within  a  constitu- 
tion, the  principles  of  which  are  acknowledged.  What 
they  are  conscious  of  is  no  more  than  rectitude,  an 
upright  and  true  attitude  tow^ards  that  constitution,  in 
opposition  to  those  against  whom  they  complain.  Their 
claim  of  righteousness  is  not  a  claim  of  sinlessness.  It 
has  little  to  do  with  this.  The  saint  who  confesses  his 
sins  in  Ps.  xxxii.  proclaims  his  righteousness  in  Ps.  vii., 
and  appeals  to  God  to  acknowledge  it  in  Pss.  iv.  and  xvii., 
and  declares  that  God  has  rewarded  him  accordimj  to  the 
cleanness  of  his  hands  in  Ps.  xviii.  The  same  Job  who 
boldly  declares,  at  what  he  knows  to  be  the  risk  of  his 
life,  "  I  am  righteous  "  (xxxiv.  5),  and  of  whom  God  Him- 
self speaks  as  "  My  servant  Job,  a  perfect  and  upright 
man,  one  that  feareth  God  and  escheweth  evil"  (i.  8), 
elsewhere  acknowledges  his  sins,  and  speaks  of  God  as 
making  him  to  possess  the  sins  of  his  youth  (xiii.  26). 
The  righteousness  of  Old  Testament  saints  is  no  more 
than  what  the  New  Testament  calls  a  true  heart,  even 
when  estimated  at  its  highest.  It  is  an  upright  attitude 
towards  the  covenant,  and  an  honest  endeavour  to  walk 
according  to  its  principles. 

And  this  covenant  had  for  its  fundamental  principle 
that  for  sins  of  infirmity,  sins  not  done  wilfully  against  the 
covenant  itself,  there  was  forgiveness.  It  is  this  which  they 
call  the  righteousness  of  God.  Righteousness  and  grace  really 
did  not  differ  within  the  covenant  relation.  The  righteous- 
ness of  God  in  the  Old  Testament  is,  no  doubt,  rather  an 
obscure  point,  but  righteousness  within  the  covenant  was, 
in  truth,  grace.  God's  covenant  meant  that  He  would  be 
gracious  to  men's  infirmities ;  and  He  was  righteous  when 
He  verified  in  men's  experience  the  ideas  and  principles 
of  the  covenant  which  was  founded  on  His  grace.  So  far 
as  what  we  might  call  the  frame  of  the  conception  of 
Old  Testament  saints  goes,  tliere  is  nothing  amiss  in  it. 


276   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

Perhaps  it  is  wanting  in  innerness,  laying  more  stress  on 
right  external  conduct  than  on  the  right  condition  of  tlic 
heart.  Still,  with  the  right  external  conduct  there  is 
always  combined  a  reference  to  the  attitude  of  the  mind 
towards  God.  The  prophets  lay  real  stress  on  justice  and 
humanity  ;  and  on  the  social  duties — to  perform  these  is 
to  be  true  to  the  idea  of  the  covenant.  But  the  great 
embracing  idea  in  their  minds  is  that  of  the  covenant 
itself,  which  God  has  imposed  and  upholds ;  and  this 
causes  conduct  to  have  a  reference  always  to  God.  Hence 
those  epitomes  of  righteousness  which  we  find  often  made 
in  the  Old  Testament,  as  in  Pss.  xv.,  xxiv.,  while  they 
contain  mainly  reference  to  conduct,  always  include  a 
reference  to  God.  He  who  shall  ascend  into  the  hill  of 
the  Lord  is  the  man  with  clean  hands,  but  also  with  a 
pure,  i.e.  upright,  heart ;  who  has  not  lifted  up  his  soul 
or  desire  to  vanity,  i.e.  to  aught  that  is  untrue,  any  order 
of  life  or  thought  in  regard  to  the  conception  of  Deity 
not  embraced  in  the  constitution  of  Israel.  And  Micah 
defines  righteousness  to  be  to  do  justly,  to  love  mercy,  i.e. 
humanity,  and  to  walk  humbly  with  God  (vi.  8).  In  short, 
righteousness,  as  it  comes  before  us  in  the  Old  Testament,  is, 
aslTTiile,  a  practical  thing.  It  is  right  conduct  accordinr 
to  the  idea  of  the  constitution  of  Israel ;  and  this  conduct 
is,  of  course,  regulated  by,  and  reflects  a  right  state  of  mind 
towards,  the  constitution. 

Now,  when  we  go  a  step  further,  and  seek  to  get  at 
the  essence  of  what  such  a  state  of  mind  is,  we  come 
nearer  to  what  we  have  in  our  minds  when  we  inquire 
what  righteousness  is,  e.g.  when  we  put  the  question.  How 
IS  a  man  righteous  before  God  ?  Practically,  righteous- 
ness is  spoken  of  as  exliibited  in  conduct  and  in  an 
attitude  of  mind.  And  tlie  Old  Testament  hardly  goes 
beyond  this  practical  way  of  speaking.  Nevertheless, 
we  may  reach  what  is  considered  the  essence  of  righteous- 
ness. It  need  not  be  said  that  it  is  not  to  be  sought  in 
sinlessness,  for  such  an  idea  nowhere  appears.  If  a  man 
calls  himself,  or  is  called  by  others,  or  is  regarded  by  God 


RIGHTEOUSNESS    BEFORE   GOD  277 

as  righteous,  tliis  is  not  l)ecausc  lie  is  sinless,  but  because  in 
some  particular  matter  lie  has  acted  rightly  according  to 
the  ])nnciples  of  piety  or  humanity  eml)()died  in  tlie  con- 
stitution of  Israel,  or  generally  that  his  life  as  a  whole 
is  in  harmony  with  these  principles.  But  such  phrase- 
ology as  is  often  met  in  Scripture — ''  If  Thou  shouldst  mark 
ini([uities,  0  Lord,  who  shall  stand?"  (Ps.  cxxx.  2);  "m 
Thy  sight  shall  no  flesh  living  be  righteous"  (cxHii.  2)? 
"for  there  is  no  man  that  sinneth  not"  (1  Kings  viii.  46) 
— shows  that  siulessness  did  not  constitute  righteousness 
before  God.  And  the  constitution,  providing  in  its  sacri- 
iicial  system  an  institution  for  forgiveness,  indicated  that 
the  people,  though  the  idea  of  Israel  was  that  of  a  right- 
eous people,  was  not  considered  as  a  whole  or  in  its 
members  sinless. 

Now  the  constitution  was  a  covenant  of  God  with  the 
people.  The  covenant  was  made  by  God  with  Israel ;  He 
took  the  initiative.  The  idea  of  such  a  covenant  is  thai 
God  drawls  near  to  men.  The  idea  of  such  a  drawing  near 
is  that  of  favour  or  grace.  This  is  the  most  general  con- 
ception ;  it  is  in  goodness,  in  self-connnunication,  in  giving 
to  the  people  of  His  own  fulness,  that  God  draws  near 
.jbo  men.  Again,  on  the  other  side,  i.e.  on  men's  side,  to 
correspond  to  this  there  must  be  the  attitude  of  acknow- 
ledgment of  this,  of  understanding  this  attitude  of  God 
towards  them,  and  acceptance  of  it  in  thankfulness  and 
humility.  These  are  the  great  conceptions  that  constitute 
the  framework  of  the  covenant  relation.  Within  this 
general  frame  there  may  be  room  for  nnich  variety,  both 
in  God's  way  of  drawing  near,  i.e.  in  the  operations  He 
performs,  in  the  ways  in  which  He  manifests  Himself,  and 
in  the  gifts  He  communicates,  as  those  of  knowledge  and 
life,  and  also  in  man's  conduct  and  way  of  thinking,  which 
will  vary  according  to  the  knowledge  he  receives,  the  Life 
that  is  awake  within  him,  and  the  circumstances  in  which 
he  is  placed.  But  variety  of  this  kind,  however  great,  is 
within  the  limits  of  the  great  general  relation  of  the  two 
parties  to  one  another.     The  external  frame  is,  so  to  speak, 


278   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

\^ery  elastic,  permitting  growth  and  expansion  to  any  degree 
within  it. 

6.  Righteousness,  Grace,  and  Faith. 

Now,  that  this  great  general  conception  was  the  main 
thing — the  idea  of  this  general  relation  of  God  and  the 
people — is  shown  by  the  constitution  itself.  What  was 
required  of  the  people  was  an  attitude  of  mind  and 
heart  corresponding  to  this  relation  of  God  to  them — a 
receptivity  and  acceptance  on  their  part  of  God  as  He 
drew  near  to  them.  Witliin  this  general  attitude  which 
was  required,  the  life  of  the  individual  might  be  a  very 
chequered  one,  marked  by  great  imperfections,  and  even  by 
sins  which  might  be  voluntary.  Such  sins  were  great  evils, 
which  it  was  the  object  of  the  covenant  relation  more  and 
more  to  overcome ;  but  they  did  not  involve  suspension  of 
the  relation  itself.  Only  sins  like  that  of  unbelief,  as 
Israel's  in  the  wilderness,  or  idolatry,  which  was  a  denial  of 
the  idea  of  the  covenant  with  Jehovah,  involved  the  suspen- 
sion of  the  covenant,  and  were  followed  by  cutting  off  from 
the  people.  Such  sins  infringed  that  general  attitude  of 
mind  toward  God  which  was  demanded  as  a  response  to 
His  approach  to  the  people.  Now,  if  we  ask  what  terms 
express  the  idea  of  God's  drawing  near  to  men  on  the  one 
side,  and  the  idea  of  their  reception  of  this  and  right 
bearing  of  mind  towards  it,  there  are  no  terms  that  do  so 
but  grace  and  faith.  It  is  quite  true  that  at  one  time 
God's  grace  might  be  much  fuller  than  at  another.  He 
might  unveil  His  face  more  fully,  impart  knowledge  in 
greater  abundance,  communicate  His  Spirit  in  greater  power. 
All  this,  however,  does  not  alter  the  general  and  the  essen- 
tial in  His  attitude  towards  the  people,  or  its  loving  grace. 
It  is  equally  true  that  men's  feeling  of  His  love  might  be 
deeper,  their  thankfulness  profounder,  their  dependence 
more  absolute,  their  trust  more  perfect  and  implicit,  as  time 
advanced.  But  all  this  does  not  touch  the  essence  of  the 
attitude  at  all  times,  which  \Yas  faith. 

In  the  general  Old  Testament  way  of  si)eaking,  a  man 


THE    RESPONSE    OF    FAITH  279 

m.'iy  be  foiiml  rigliU'ous  in  regard  to  liis  individual  acts, 
or  ill  regard  to  bis  general  life.  lUit  it  is  to  be  observed 
tbat  tbis  is  tbe  case  of  a  man  witbin  tbe  covenant,  not 
of  one  outside  of  it.  And  bis  being  witbin  tbe  covenant 
presupposes  and  implies  bis  general  attitude  towards  God 
of  faitb.  Unless  by  bis  conduct  he  sbows  tbe  reverse, 
and  is  cut  oif,  tbis  is  assumed.  And  bere  lies  the  essence 
of  bis  being  right  with  God,  his  response  by  faith  to 
His  grace,  in  accepting  tbe  covenant  and  tbe  continued 
exhibition  of  tbis  condition  of  mind  in  the  man's  life 
and  conduct.  The  righteous  acts  for  which  he  is  found 
righteous  are  only  the  exhibition  of  his  attitude  towards 
God  and  His  covenant  of  grace.  The  covenant  was  made 
with  the  people  as  a  whole,  and  its  blessings  became  the 
possession  of  individuals  as  members  of  the  general  body. 
This  is  the  Old  Testament  conception,  and  for  a  long  time 
this  conception  remains  intact. 

But,  of  course,  though  tbis  be  the  general  conception, 
in  point  of  fact  the  individual  must  exhibit  for  himself  the 
condition  of  mind  demanded  of  tbe  whole ;  and  as  the 
people  as  a  whole  were  endowed  with  God's  Spirit,  this 
was  also  tbe  possession  of  the  individual  as  a  member  of 
the  whole.  It  is  only  in  tbe  later  prophets,  like  Jeremiah, 
that  the  individual  rises  into  tbe  prominence  which  be 
receives  in  the  Pauline  conception  of  rigliteousness,  or 
something  like  prominence.  But  what  I  wish  to  indicate 
at  present  is,  that  tbe  same  general  conceptions  in  regard 
to  crrace  and  rifditeousness  are  characteristic  of  tbe  first 
covenant  as  of  tbe  new.  To  be  righteous  is  to  be  right, 
i.e.  to  be  found  taking  towards  God's  covenant,  which  is 
a  thing  having  as  its  principle  grace,  the  right  attitude ; 
and  this  attitude  is  faith. 

Of  course,  this  faith  is  not  conceived  as  an  abstract 
thing ;  it  is  faitb  in  the  particular  circumstances  of  tbe 
people's  condition.  It  is  always  practical.  It  is  tbe  faith 
of  James :  "  I  will  show  thee  my  faith  by  iny  v/orks " 
(ii.  18).  And  it  naturally  always  desired  to  see  the 
response   of   God   to   it   in   deeds   of    salvation   on   behalf 


280   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

of  tlie  people.  Circumstances,  however,  tended  to  clarify 
this  faith,  and  give  it  a  profounder  and  more  strictly 
spiritual  character.  The  time  came  wlien  any  interference 
of  Jehovah  on  behalf  of  the  State  was  hopeless.  Its 
destruction  was  inevitable.  The  people's  minds  were  drawn 
away  from  the  present,  and  fixed  upon  the  future.  Faith 
was  cut  away  from  its  connection  with  any  form  of  national 
life  or  external  condition,  and  it  became  a  spiritual  re- 
lation to  God.  And  by  the  same  process  it  became  less 
a  national  thing  than  a  condition  of  the  individual  mind. 
Israel's  national  ruin  cut  the  people  into  two  classes,  and 
faith  found  refuge  with  one — with  those  that  looked  for 
the  consolation  of  Israel.  Again,  it  is  quite  probable  that 
even  in  this  faith  there  may  have  been  elements  that 
required  sifting  and  clearing  away ;  but  faith  rose  to  be  a 
spiritual  trust  in  the  unseen,  "  the  substance  of  things 
hoped  for,  the  evidence  of  things  not  seen"  (Heb.  xi.  1). 

One  thing  else  may  be  referred  to  as  indicating  that 
the  essence  of  man's  relation  to  the  covenant  was  faith 
in  Jehovah.  That  is  the  fact  that  idolatry,  denial  that 
Jehovah  alone  was  God  of  Israel,  was  followed  by  cutting 
off  from  the  people.  This  struck  at  a  point  behind  the 
covenant,  and  threw  the  sinner  outside  the  sphere  where 
Jehovah  was  gracious :  it  was  general  retribution  over 
against  His  grace.  The  same  idea  rules  the  institution 
of  sacrifice.  Only  for  sins  of  ignorance  or  infirmity  were 
sacrifices  available.  Sins  wilful,  or  done  with  a  high  hand, 
again  struck  at  the  fundamental  conception  of  the  rela- 
tion ;  they  were  direct  attacks  upon  the  principle  of  the 
covenant,  and  they  could  not  be  atoned  for. 

Now,  exactly  corresponding  to  this  negative  point  was 
the  positive  point  of  the  law.  The  law  was  given  to  the 
people  in  covenant.  It  was  a  rule  of  life,  not  of  justifica- 
tion ;  it  was  guide  to  the  man  who  was  already  right  in 
God's  esteem  in  virtue  of  his  general  attitude  towards  the 
covenant.  The  law  is  not  to  Israel  a  law  of  morals  on 
the  bare  ground  of  human  duty,  apart  from  God's  exhibition 
of  His  grace.     It  is  a  line  marked  out  along  which  the 


RIGHTEOUSNESS   IMPUTED  281 

life  of  tlie  people  or  the  ])oiy()n  in  covenant  witli  God,  and 
already  right  vvitli  (lod  on  tliat  giouiul,  is  to  unfold  itself. 
No  assumption  of  sinlessness  is  made,  nor,  indeed,  is  such  a 
thing  demanded.  The  institutions  of  atonement  provided 
for  the  taking  away  of  sins  done  tlnougli  infirmity,  and  the 
law  was  a  direction  to  the  believer  how  to  bear  himself 
practically  within  the  covenant  relation.  A  man's  conduct 
shows  him  to  be  righteous ;  lie  is  justitied  by  works.  But 
this  is  not  the  technical  use  of  the  term  jiistifiratiun  now 
in  use.  It  is  another  use  quite  legitimate,  not  to  be 
opposed  to  the  technical  use,  but  possible  alongside  of  it. 
Faith  precedes  this  justification ;  it  is  a  right  attitude 
within  the  covenant.  If  we  may  say  so,  it  is  not  the 
man  himself  that  is  justified  by  works,  but  his  faith. 
This  is  one  way  of  thinking,  and  it  may  have  some  affinity 
with  the  line  of  thought  in  the  Epistle  of  James. 

But  another  line  of  expression  and  feeling  may  also  be 
observed.  That  touches  the  idea  of  a  righteousness  imputed. 
First,  we  observe  it  most  clearly  in  the  life  of  individuals. 
It  is  connected  with  the  consciousness  of  sin.  Generally, 
perhaps,  some  more  flagrant  sin  had  awakened  the  con- 
science, and  given  a  deeper  sense  of  the  sinfulness  of  nature 
in  the  sinner,  and  led  him  to  seek  refuge  innnediately  in 
God's  forgiveness,  as  in  Psalms  xxxii.  and  li.  But,  no  doubt, 
without  the  commission  of  flagrant  sins  the  sense  of  man's 
sinfulness  became  deeper  as  the  national  life  progressed. 
The  great  sorrows  to  which  individuals  were  subjected  in 
the  time  of  the  dissolution  of  the  State  caused  deeper 
thought  on  the  causes  of  their  misfortunes,  imparted  a 
profounder  sense  of  the  alienation  of  the  mind  from  God, 
and  sharpened  the  conviction  that  righteousness  could  be 
obtained  only  in  God's  forgiving  mercy.  Secondly,  we 
observe  the  same  line  of  reflection  in  the  prophets.  The 
nation  was,  in  their  view,  incurably  sinful ;  it  had  broken 
the  covenant ;  righteousness  under  the  first  covenant  was 
no  more  to  be  hoped  for.  Only  in  a  new  covenant,  the 
very  foundation  of  which  was  a  com])lete  Divine  forgive- 
ness, could  the  people  be  found  righteous. 


282   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

We  see  tlie  steps  of  this  thouglit,  as  always,  most 
clearly  in  Jeremiali.  He  begins  with  preaching  re})entauce 
to  the  people;  only  by  repentance  can  the  calamity  of  de- 
struction be  averted.  Suddenly,  in  the  midst  of  his  calls  to 
the  people  to  repent,  the  question  seems  to  occur  to  him, 
Can  they  repent  ?  Is  there  any  ability  in  them  to  do  what 
is  demanded  of  them  ?  Can  the  Ethiopian  change  his  skin, 
or  the  leopard  his  spots  ?  All  hope  from  the  side  of  the 
people  or  of  man  is  over.  Only  in  God  can  righteousness 
for  them  be  found.  He  is  "  the  Lord  our  righteousness  " 
(xxiii.  6).  Hence  he  finds  refuge  in  the  conception  of  a 
new  covenant  in  which  God  bestows  righteousness :  "  I 
will  forgive  their  iniquity,  and  remember  their  sin  no 
more  "  (xxxi.  34).  We  perceive  in  the  Old  Testament  the 
same  general  conceptions  as  in  the  New,  although  they  are 
presented  more  practically  and  in  a  less  precise  form. 

7.  Suffering  and  Imjnitation. 

There  was  a  corresponding  development  of  thought  on 
the  subject  of  suffering,  the  imputation  of  sin,  and  the 
relation  of  the  individual  to  the  family  and  the  nation. 

In  the  earlier  Scriptures  these  questions  did  not  come 
into  prominence.  There  the  doctrine  is  taught  that  God 
visits  the  iniquity  of  the  fathers  upon  their  children  unto 
the  third  and  fourth  generation.  The  idea  seems  to  be  that 
the  fathers  are  still  punished,  their  punishment  falling  on 
them  in  their  children.  The  standing  of  the  children  as 
individuals  is  not  thought  of,  nor  the  question  what  re- 
lation the  calamity  has  to  them.  The  idea  of  unity  is  the 
uppermost ;  and  the  idea  that  the  descendants  belong  to 
the  original  offender,  and  that  he  is  still  suffering  God's 
anger  in  his  children.  It  was  naturally  to  be  expected 
that  in  the  age  of  Jeremiah,  when  the  relation  of  men  to 
God  as  individuals,  and  in  their  own  right,  so  to  speak,  came 
to  be  more  prominently  treated,  this  question  of  the  punish- 
ment of  one's  descendants  for  his  sin  should  come  up 
also.      And   so  we  find  it  in   the  prophets  and   writers  of 


GOD    AND    THE    INDIVIDUAL  283 

that  age.  The  people  perhaps  felt  that  they  were  suffering 
for  the  sins  of  their  ancestors.  They  said  :  "  The  fathers 
have  eaten  a  sour  grape,  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set 
on  edge"  (Jer.  xxxi.  29).  In  some  way  they  abused  this 
doctrine,  either  in  the  way  of  self-exculpation,  or  in  the 
way  of  charging  God  with  unrighteousness.  The  prophet 
Jeremiah  takes  up  the  proverb.  Its  use  raised  the  (luestion 
in  his  mind.  He  seems  to  perceive  in  the  method  of  God's 
dealing  with  men,  which  this  proverb  suggests,  what  is 
the  essence  of  the  old  covenant  method — the  method  of 
dealing  with  men  in  the  mass,  or  with  Israel  as  a  com- 
munity ;  a  method  which  obliterated  the  rights  of  the 
individual,  or  under  which,  at  least,  the  individual  did  not 
come  into  the  prominence  that  belonged  to  him.  And  he 
foresees  the  time  when  this  method  shall  no  more  prevail. 

But  if  this  method  no  more  prevail,  its  cessation  will  be 
because  God  and  the  individual  heart  will  become  the  two 
factors  in  the  covenant  relation.  The  external  organism 
will  come  to  an  end.  All  that  made  Israel  distinctive  as 
a  community,  its  external  organisation,  its  old  palladiums 
of  redemption  and  salvation,  its  orders  of  teachers,  like 
priests  and  prophets — all  this  will  come  to  an  end.  Men 
shall  no  more  call  to  mind  the  ark  of  the  covenant ;  they 
shall  no  more  teach  every  man  his  neighbour ;  the  law 
and  ordinances  sliall  no  more  be  external.  Hence  this 
proverb  comes  to  an  end  simultaneously  with  the  coming 
in  of  the  new  order  of  things  called  the  New  Covenant : 
"  Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  .  .  .  that  as  I 
have  watched  over  them  to  pluck  up  and  to  break  down, 
so  will  I  watch  over  them  to  build  and  to  plant,  saith  the 
Lord.  In  those  days  they  shall  say  no  more,  The  fathers 
have  eaten  a  sour  grape,  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set 
on  edge.  But  every  man  shall  die  for  his  own  iniquity. 
Every  man  that  eateth  the  sour  grape,  his  teeth  shall  be 
set  on  edge.  Behold,  the  days  come  that  I  will  make  a 
new  covenant  with  the  house  of  Israel  ...  I  will  put  My 
law  in  their  inward  parts  and  write  it  in  their  hearts 
.   .  .   they  shall  all   know  Me"  (xxxi.   29-34). 


284   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

That  tlie  principle  of  punishing  the  cliildren  for  tlie 
sins  of  the  fathers  was  much  speculated  on  in  this  age, 
appears  also  from  the  fact  that  the  same  proverb  is  referred 
to  by  Ezekiel  (xviii.  2),  and  its  further  prevalence  denied. 
And  in  the  Book  of  Job,  where  all  such  questions  concern- 
ing evil  are  focused,  Job  repudiates  the  doctrine,  and  holds 
the  procedure  unjust.  He  points  to  the  fact  that  a  man 
is  often  not  punished  for  his  sins  in  this  life.  His  friends 
reply  that  the  punishment  falls  on  his  children.  To  which 
he  answers,  Let  God  chastise  the  man  himself ;  what 
concern  hath  he  in  his  house  after  him  when  the  days 
of  his  own  life  are  completed  ?  Job's  reply  is  to  the  effect 
that  the  method  of  Providence  referred  to  is  unjust,  and 
in  point  of  fact  fails  as  a  punishment  on  the  man  himself, 
seeing  he  is  all  unconscious  of  the  incidence  of  God's 
anger  on  his  descendants  (xxi.  16—34). 

What  made  the  question  of  such  profound  interest 
was  this.  God's  external  treatment  of  men  was  held 
to  reflect  His  true  relation  to  them.  Chastisements  were 
indications  of  His  anger.  A  distinction  was  not  yet  drawn 
between  God's  external  providence  and  God*s  true  mind 
towards  men.  In  the  Book  of  Job  we  perceive  this  dis- 
tinction in  the  very  course  of  being  arrived  at.  Yet  Job, 
though  lie  knows  the  two  things,  calls  them  both  God, 
and  appeals  to  the  one  against  the  other :  "  Mine  eye 
poureth  out  tears  to  God  that  He  would  procure  justice 
for  a  man  with  God"^  (xvi.  20).  Thus  God's  external 
dealing  with  men  being  the  reflection  of  His  true  relation 
to  them,  the  injustice  of  inflicting  anger  on  the  children 
for  the  sins  of  the  father  was  manifest  so  soon  as  the  idea 
of  individual  rights  occurred  to  one.  Hence  Jeremiah  has 
no  help  but  to  demand  a  complete  reversal  of  this  pro- 

*  In  his  commentary  on  The  Book  of  Job  ("  Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools 
and  Colleges"),  Dr.  Davidson  puts  it  so — "Job  now  names  his  Witness,  and 
states  what  he  hopes  for  from  Him. 
**  20  Mj  friends  scorn  me  : 

Mine  eye  poureth  out  tears  unto  God, 
21  That  He  would  maintain  tlie  right  of  a  man  with  God, 
And  of  a  son  of  man  against  his  neighbour." — Ed. 


THE    ELEVATION    OF    THE    INDIVIDUAL  285 

ceeding;  and  he  seems  to  require  that  evil  .sluill  not  fall 
on  a  man's  descendants  because  of  a  man's  sins.  We 
know  that  this  involvement  of  others  in  a  man's  sin  con- 
tinues to  be  the  case,  and  must  be.  But  we  draw  the 
distinction  between  evils  of  this  kind  and  God's  true 
relation  to  the  individual.  Salvation  is  to  be  distin- 
guished from  this  more  external  sphere.  No  doubt  the 
two  will  influence  one  another,  as  a  man's  condition  or 
circumstances  may  influence  his  knowledge  of  God,  or  his 
will  to  receive  the  truth.  The  Apostle  Paul  has  carried 
back  this  principle  into  the  history  of  Israel  from  the 
beginning,  distinguishing  between  God's  treatment  of  the 
nation  and  His  relation  to  individuals. 

The  elevation  of  the  individual  into  religious  promi- 
nence, and  the  constituting  him,  so  to  speak,  the  religious 
unit  instead  of  the  people,  had  wide  consequences.  No 
doubt  the  community  was  made  up  of  individuals,  and  the 
teaching  of  the  prophets,  though  directed  to  the  nation, 
must  at  all  times  have  been  taken  home  by  individuals  to 
themselves.  And  in  order  fully  to  realise  the  life  of 
Israel,  we  have  to  take  into  account  the  Psalms  and  the 
Wisdom  books  as  well  as  the  Prophets.  It  is  in  these 
more  subjective  writings  that  the  life  of  the  individual 
and  his  thoughts  find  expression.  It  is  extremely  difficult 
to  place  these  writings  with  any  certainty  in  their  true 
historical  place.  It  is  also  at  all  times  difficult,  no  doubt, 
to  detect  in  history  the  causes  that  brought  into  promi- 
nence certain  questions.  But  at  all  events  the  dissolution 
of  the  State  as  a  religious  unit  naturally  brought  into 
prominence  the  standing  of  the  individual  towards  God. 
The  extreme  hardships  also  borne  by  many  pious  men  at 
this  period  forced  upon  men's  thoughts  the  relation  of  evil 
in  God's  providence  to  sin  and  to  righteousness.  Even 
the  destruction  of  Israel  as  a  nation,  and  its  subjection  to 
heathen  conquerors,  might  have  raised  this  question. 

No  doubt,  in  many  minds  the  deep  consciousness  of  the 
sin  of  the  nation  was  sufficient  to  allay  and  remove  doubt. 
These  heathen  conquerors  were  but  instruments  of  chastise- 


286   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

inent  in  Jehovali's  liaiid  ;  the  Assyrian  was  "  tlie  rod  of 
His  anger  "  (Isa.  x.  5).  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  Israel  was, 
in  comparison  with  these  idolatrous,  cruel  nations,  the 
righteous  people,  the  servant  of  God.  The  truth  was  in 
Israel ;  there  w^as  a  holy  stock  in  it.  Such  thoughts 
would  arise,  perhaps,  only  later,  when  the  oppressions  of 
the  Exile  had  been  long  continued,  and  there  seemed  no 
hope  of  release  from  it.  Then  the  problem  of  evil  became 
oppressive  to  the  mind  of  godly  men.  And  it  was  the 
subject  of  much  reflection,  and  received,  perhaps,  various 
solutions. 

One  remarkable  book  in  the  Old  Testament  is  devoted 
to  the  discussion  of  it,  the  Book  of  Job.  This  book  may 
discuss  the  evils  of  Israel  or  those  of  Judah,  but  probably 
its  theme  is  suggested  by  the  calamities  that  befell  either 
the  Northern  or  the  Southern  State.  It  may  be  going 
too  far  to  say  that  Job  is  a  type  of  the  people ;  that 
is,  that  the  people  are  spoken  of  personified  under  his 
name.  That  is  scarcely  probable,  and  the  supposition  is 
not  necessary.  It  is  the  sufferings  of  individuals,  godly 
individuals,  that  are  exhibited.  Job  is  but  a  specimen,  an 
idealised  specimen.  But  the  solution  proposed  by  the 
author  of  the  book  is  that  these  sufferings  are  not  for 
sin,  for  Job  is  perfect  and  upright,  fearing  God  and 
eschewing  evil  (i.  1);  they  are  a  trial  of  righteousness, 
and  if  borne  in  patience  and  devoutness,  lead  to  a  restora- 
tion and  a  higher  blessedness.  This  view  makes  Job's 
sufferings  only  have  meaning  if  they  are  but  examples  of 
the  sufferings  of  many  who  suffered  like  himself.  Job's 
sufferings  have  no  relation  to  any  but  himself.  Job  is 
not  in  his  sufferings  a  Messianic  type.  His  history  is 
consoling  to  sufferers,  whose  sufferings  may  be  severe  or 
mysterious — to  religious  men ;  it  has  not  a  higher  value. 
The  solution  of  the  meaning  of  sufferings  which  is  given 
by  the  prophet  Isaiah  in  the  second  half  of  his  book, 
is  much  more  profound.  There  the  Servant  of  the  Lord 
suffers  innocently,  too,  like  Job ;  but  his  sufferings  are  for 
the  sins  of  the  guilty. 


THE    INNER    ISRAEL  287 

There  is,  again,  this  case  of  the  descendants  of  sinners, 
who  suffer  the  evils  of  their  forefathers'  sins.  The  circum- 
stances of  the  time  brought  this  question  into  pronn'ncnce. 
The  godly  exiles  were  bearing  the  iniquities  of  tlieir  fathers. 
And  men's  thouglits  were  turned  to  tlie  old  doctrine  of 
retribution  enunciated  early,  that  God  visits  the  sins  of  tlie 
fathers  upon  the  children  unto  tlie  third  and  fourtli  gene- 
ration. The  question  is  of  interest,  because  we  see  the 
minds  of  the  wise  of  that  age  working  their  way  towards 
a  truth,  or  at  least  towards  setting  forth  prominently  a 
truth,  which,  though  always  a  truth,  does  not  receive  nnich 
prominence  before  this  time — the  truth,  namely,  set  forth 
by  St.  Paul,  that  they  are  not  all  Israel  who  are  of  Israel 
(Eoin.  ix.  6) ;  that  within  the  outer  frame  of  Israel,  the 
nominal  people  of  Jehovah,  there  is  an  inner  circle  to 
whom,  in  truth,  God  is  communicating  the  blessings  of 
the  covenant.  We  perceive  this  great  truth  receiving 
prominence  at  this  epoch  in  two  forms,  both  leading,  how- 
ever, to  the  same  result,  one  in  the  Book  of  Job,  and 
another  in  such  prophets  as  Jeremiah.  The  truth  is  set 
forth  in  the  form  that  God's  external  treatment  of  the 
individual,  or  the  people,  is  not  the  index  of  God's  true 
relation  to  either.  In  other  words,  religion  is  divorced 
from  any  connection  with  what  is  external,  and  is  driven 
into  the  heart,  and  made  to  be  a  relation  of  the  spirit 
to  the  Lord,  which  no  proofs  in  the  shape  of  external 
blessings  may  attend.  The  calamities  of  Job  were  no 
proof  that  God's  heart  was  not  towards  him ;  the  disper- 
sion of  the  nation,  or  at  least  the  breaking  up  of  the 
external  forms  of  the  religious  state,  did  not  invalidate 
religion. 

This  may  seem  a  commonplace  to  us,  but  perhaps  it 
was  little  short  of  a  revolution  in  the  thinking  of  many 
in  Israel.  For  the  fundamental  idea,  so  to  speak,  of 
the  Old  Covenant  was  that  the  people's  relation  to  the 
Lord  was  reflected  in  their  external  circumstances.  The 
external  Ijlessings  were  the  seal  to  them  of  God's  favour ; 
calamity  was  the  token  to  tliem  of  Ilis  anger.      It  was  the 


288   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

same  in  the  case  of  tlie  individual.  Perhaps  for  long  they 
could  hardly  realise  God's  favour  out  of  connection  with 
the  external  tokens  of  it.  The  fundamental  conception 
of  tlie  Wisdom  was,  that  it  was  well  with  the  righteous 
and  ill  with  the  wicked.  This  general  principle,  no  doubt 
true  as  a  general  principle,  was  taken  up  as  without  ex- 
ception. And,  in  like  manner,  it  needed  God's  severe 
dealing  with  them  to  bring  home  to  them  their  sense  of 
sin ;  or  at  least  they  saw  His  anger  reflected  in  calamity. 
The  conflict  between  Job  and  his  friends  on  the  meaning 
of  calamity,  and  their  pertinacious  maintenance  of  the 
theory  that  suffering  is  always  due  to  sin,  indicate  to  us 
the  kind  of  questioning  that  was  going  on  in  men's  minds 
in  this  age.  And  when  the  author  of  the  book  allows 
Job  to  drive  his  opponents  from  the  lield  on  this  point,  we 
perceive  that  it  was  his  purpose  to  discredit  the  doctrine, 
in  the  shape  in  which  they  advanced  it,  as  one  that  could 
not  be  maintained.  While,  when  he  brings  forward  his 
own  doctrine,  that  calamity  may  not  be  for  sin,  but  as  a 
trial  of  righteousness,  we  see  at  least  one  other  solution  of 
the  question,  one  applicable  not  only  to  individuals,  but  to 
the  suffering  nation. 

But  what  is  more  interesting  is  the  conflict  in  Job's 
own  mind,  and  his  successful  effort  to  realise  to  him- 
self that,  in  spite  of  God's  severe  chastisement  of  him, 
God  and  he  are  still  in  true  fellowship.  The  way  in 
which  he  expresses  this  is  singular  enough,  but  also  in- 
telligible enough.  To  his  mind  God  was  the  immediate 
author  of  every  event.  His  sufferings  came  direct  from 
God's  hand.  And  he,  unlike  the  author  of  the  book,  still 
held  that  sufferings  indicated  the  anger  of  God,  or  at  least 
that  God  was  holding  him  guilty  of  sins.  Yet  he  rises 
to  the  assurance  that  God  knows  his  innocence ;  one  God 
holds  him  guilty,  another  knows  his  innocence,  and  he 
appeals  to  the  one  against  the  other.  This  is  but  his 
Hebraistic  way  of  affirming  that  God's  heart  as  He  is  in 
Himself  is  toward  him,  though  His  outer  providence  be 
against  him.      But  this  half  solution,  as   we  may  call  it, 


EVIL   OUTSIDE    HUMANITY  289 

which  is  forced  to  make  two  out  of  tlio  one  God,  iii(hcates 
to  us  tlie  struggles  wliicli  it  cost  men  at  this  time  to  rise, 
even  under  tlie  teacliing  of  God's  providential  dealings,  to 
the  idea  that  religion  was  a  thing  altogether  of  the  relation 
of  the  spirit  to  God,  and  that  it  miglit  exist  with  no 
external  tokens  of  God's  favour. 


IX.  DOCTRINE  OF  RlWEMrTION—SUPBAHUMAN 
GOOD  AND  EVIL. 

1.  Angels. 

Something  has  been  said  of  the  ideas  of  evil  entertained 
in  Israel  and  expressed  in  Scripture,  and  of  the  conscious- 
ness of  sin  and  guilt  among  the  people  of  God.  But 
another  question  presents  itself,  which  is  of  great  interest, 
and  also  of  some  importance.  That  is  the  question  of  the 
existence  of  evil  outside  the  sphere  of  the  human  mind  and 
human  society.  Are  there  traces  of  a  belief  in  the  exist- 
ence of  a  superhuman  evil  to  be  found  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  in  the  New  ?  And  if  so,  to  what  extent  of 
development  had  this  belief  attained  among  the  covenant 
people  in  the  prophetic  age  in  particular  ?  This  is  a  large 
question ;  and  to  speak  in  a  judicious  manner  upon  it  re- 
quires an  extensive  observation  of  individual  passages 
scattered  largely  about  in  many  writings,  and  a  careful 
weighing  of  the  amount  of  meaning  to  be  fairly  attached 
to  them  in  the  circumstances  and  connections  in  which 
they  are  found.  The  question  has  two  sides :  one,  the 
existence  of  evil  in  regions  lying  outside  human  life,  and 
among  the  creatures  of  God  not  belonging  to  the  human 
race ;  the  other,  the  influence  of  beings  of  tliis  kind  upon 
the  destiny  of  man  in  general,  and  upon  the  self-determina- 
tion of  individual  minds  among  men  in  particular.  Both 
these  questions  receive  large  illumination  in  the  New 
Testament.  All  that  can  be  looked  for  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment will  ])e  traces  of  beliefs  going  in  the  same  direction 
19 


290       THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

as  the  more  fully  developed  New  Testament  doctrines 
And  the  most  interesting  question  will  be  whether  such 
traces  be  actually  discoverable,  and  to  what  distance  in 
this  direction  they  may  be  followed. 

Now,  first,  the  raising  of  such  a  question  brings  us  face 
to  face  with  another  question,  namely,  the  question  of  the 
existence  of  beings  not  creatures  of  God  such  as  men  are, 
but  standing  in  moral  relations  to  Him  as  men  do,  and  as 
all  beings  in  the  universe  must  do.  For  the  God  of  Israel, 
who  is  also  the  God  of  the  whole  universe,  is  no  mere 
unmoral  force  in  the  universe,  nor  the  unmoral  sum  of  all 
the  forces  in  the  universe  ;  He  is,  above  all  things,  an  ethical 
Being.  His  physical  nature  is  hardly  ever  alluded  to  in 
the  Old  Testament.  It  does  not  even  go  the  length,  which 
the  New  Testament  does,  of  calling  Him  Spirit,  though  it 
gives  numerous  predications  regarding  Him,  and  assigns 
numerous  attributes  to  Him,  which  show  that  the  concep- 
tion of  His  spiritual  essence  underlay  all  current  ideas  and 
modes  of  expression  regarding  Him.  There  is,  I  think, 
only  one  passage  in  the  Old  Testament  which  approaches 
to  saying  in  words  that  He  is  Spirit.  It  is  the  passage 
already  alluded  to  in  Isaiah :  "  The  Egyptians  are  men,  and 
not  God ;  their  horses  are  flesh,  and  not  spirit "  (xxxi.  3). 
The  Old  Testament  has  no  place  for  speculations  upon  the 
physical  essence  of  God.  It  does  not  say  that  He  is 
Spirit;  it  says  that  He  has  a  Spirit,  which  is  the  source 
,of  all  life  and  organic  existence  in  the  world.  But  its 
main  interest  lies  in  defining  God  as  an  ethical  Being, 
and  placing  all  other  beings  in  the  universe  in  ethical 
relations  to  Him. 

And  these  ethical  relations  cover  the  whole  forms  of 
existence  and  every  manifestation  of  the  life  of  these  other 
beings.  We  are  fond,  in  our  scientific  analytic  manner,  of 
dividing  man  into  two  elements,  soul  and  body ;  and  so 
does  Scripture  in  a  general  way.  But  Scripture  never  goes 
the  length  that  we  are  apt  to  go  of  calling  the  body  a 
material  organism,  and  regarding  it  as  suljject  to  the  laws 
of  or<^anisu)s:  that  is,  laws  different  from  moral  laws,  and 


EXISTENCE    OF    ANGELS    ASSUMED  291 

applying  to  tlie  body  of  man  as  a  tiling  outside  the  region 
of  moral  law.  In  the  Old  Testament,  man,  body  and  soul, 
is  a  unity ;  and  that  unity  is  a  moral  unity,  standing  in 
relations  to  the  great  moral  Being  in  the  universe ;  and 
man,  in  his  body  as  well  as  in  his  soul,  i.e.  man  as  a  whole, 
belongs  to  the  region  of  the  moral  world.  All  that  he  does 
is  estimated  on  moral  principles ;  all  that  happens  to  him 
illustrates  moral  principles ;  and  if  any  part  of  him,  as  his 
body,  falls  into  another  region,  where  other  laws  prevail, 
e.(/.  the  region  of  material  organism,  this  is  because  some- 
thing has  occurred  in  his  history  which  has  disrupted  the 
unity  of  his  being,  and  thrown  the  elements  of  his  nature, 
for  a  time  at  least,  into  another  region,  and  subjected  it  to 
the  laws  that  prevail  in  that  sphere,  namely,  to  the  laws  of 
material  dissolution  and  decomposition.  But  this  is  the 
eft'ect  of  evil,  and  is  only  temporary.  The  scheme  of  resti- 
tution retrieves  it.  And  the  Scripture  doctrine  is  that 
when  he  is  restored,  man  again  becomes  a  unity,  and  all 
the  parts  of  this  unity  enter  together  again  into  the  moral 
sphere,  and  the  unity  takes  up  the  right  moral  relation  to 
God  and  retains  it  for  ever ;  a  doctrine  which  is  expressed 
in  words  not  unfamiliar  to  us :  "  Their  bodies  being  united 
to  Christ,  do  rest  in  their  graves  till  the  resurrection " 
{Shorter  Catechism), — i.e.  the  new  man  is  united  to  Christ, 
both  in  his  soul  and  in  his  body,  as  an  indivisible  unity. 
But  this  being  the  conception  of  the  Old  Testament,  it 
being  just  its  characteristic  that  it  passes  this  moral  judg- 
ment on  all  beings,  it  is  to  be  looked  for  that  if  it  assumes 
the  existence  of  other  beings  besides  man,  it  will  not  leave 
undetermined  the  moral  sphere  to  which  they  belong.  If 
there  be  angels,  they  will  be  eitlier  good  or  bad  angels. 

'Now,  first,  that  there  are  beings  called  angels.  Scripture 
does  not  prove,  but  everywhere  it  assumes.  No  person 
denies  that  the  people  of  Israel  and  the  writers  of  Scrip- 
ture believed  in  the  existence  of  beings  so  named,  or  tlmt 
Scripture  makes  the  belief  its  own.  Tlie  question  which 
some  persons  have  raised,  or  have  been  supposed  to  raise 
is  not  whether  Scripture  makes  this  belief  its  own,  but 


292   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

whether,  after  all,  it  may  not  be  just  an  opinion  current  in 
those  days  and  among  that  Eastern  people,  which,  though 
made  its  own  by  Scripture,  yet,  not  being  of  the  essence  of 
religion,  may  be  in  our  day  legitimate  subject  for  discussion, 
with  the  view  of  arriving  at  scientific  conclusions  on  the 
subject.  With  the  question  in  that  form  we  do  not  deal 
here.      It  is  part  of  the  general  question  of  Scripture  itself. 

But  the  question  may  appear  in  another  form.  It 
may  be  put  thus:  Does  not  Scripture  sometimes  so  speak 
of  angels  as  to  show  that  in  the  minds  of  the  writers  their 
personality  was  not  always  very  clearly  conceived;  that 
though  on  many  occasions  this  personality  seems  clearly 
grasped,  on  other  occasions  it  is  dim,  and  the  angelic  being 
melts  away  into  a  mere  manifestation  of  the  providence 
of  God  in  some  form,  as  when  it  is  said:  "He  makes 
winds  His  angels,  and  a  flame  of  fire  His  messengers "  ? 
(Ps.  civ.  4).  And  the  question  is  put,  Is  it  not  this 
class  of  passages  that  we  should  regard  as  giving  the 
key  to  the  true  Biblical  conception  of  the  angels  ?  Are 
they  not  mere  manifestations  of  God's  providential  and 
redemptive  activity,  first  idealised  into  living  agencies,  and 
then  further  adorned  w^ith  personal  attributes,  those  of 
strength,  holiness,  and  the  like,  which  are  characteristic  of 
God's  action  in  providence  and  in  grace  ?  Now,  that  is  a 
question  which  is  not  like  the  other  one  lying  behind 
Scripture ;  it  is  one  raised  on  the  stage  of  Scripture  itself, 
and  no  one  need  be  afraid  to  discuss  it. 

I  shall  only  say  in  regard  to  it,  that  the  view  appears 
to  me  to  invert  the  Scripture  method  of  conception.  The 
angels  are  in  Scripture  the  agents  and  ministers  of  God 
in  His  providence  and  grace.  They  are,  according  to  the 
later  generalisation  regarding  them,  "  all  ministering  spirits, 
sent  forth  to  minister  for  the  sake  of  them  who  shall  be 
heirs  of  salvation"  (Heb.  i.  14).  They  carry  out  God's 
will,  and  communicate  to  His  saints  strength  or  light.  But 
as  doing  so  they  are  personal  beings ;  and  the  phraseology 
which  uses  the  name  of  angels  for  the  mere  providence  of 
God  and  His  care  of  men,  is  a  later  phraseology,  which 


NAMES    OF    ANGELS  29:*) 

reposes  upon  the  more  strict  and  usual  conception  of  what 
the  angels  are,  and  applies  it  in  a  looser  way.  Passages 
of  tliis  sort  may  be  found,  perhaps,  in  Ps.  xxxiv.  7  :  "  The 
angel  of  the  Lord  encampeth  round  about  tlicni  that  fear 
Him  " ;  and  Ps.  xci.  11:"  He  shall  give  His  angels  charge 
over  Thee,  to  keep  Thee  in  all  Thy  ways.  They  shall 
bear  Thee  up  in  tlieir  hands,  lest  Thou  dash  Tliy  foot 
against  a  stone."  It  may  be  difficult  in  particular  cases 
to  decide  between  the  strict  use  of  the  name  to  indicate 
personal  agents,  and  its  more  colourless  use  for  God's 
providential  care.  The  colourless  use,  however,  is  not  the 
primary,  but  the  secondary  application,  and  reposes  on 
what  is  more  strict ;  it  is  a  figurative  mode  of  speech, 
whicli  is  based,  however,  on  what  many  times  is  actual  fact. 
Now,  second,  Scripture  uses  certain  names  for  these 
superhuman  beings.  And  these  names  are  of  two  kinds : 
first,  those  which  define  their  nature,  or  the  class  or  grade 
of  being  to  which  they  belong,  in  contrast  with  the  race  of 
men ;  and,  second,  those  which  describe  their  office,  in 
regard  to  God  or  men.  Names  of  the  first  kind  are  o^i.^; 
or  'x  ^^53,  QyX  or  'i<  \^3.  They  are  called  Elohim,  or  sons  of 
Eloliim ;  Mini,  or  sons  of  Mini.  This  expression  is  no  doubt 
wrongly  translated  in  our  Version  '  sons  of  God.'  The 
name  Mohim  is  used  both  for  God  and  for  angels.  The 
angels  are  Eloliim ;  and  as  a  family  or  class  they  are  '  sons 
of  Elohim,'  just  as  prophets  are  Nehiini,  or  sons  of  Nehiini. 
The  idea  that  they  are  called  'sons  of  God*  because  they 
stand  in  close  relation  to  God,  or  because  they  share  in  the 
purely  spiritual  nature  of  God,  is  not  contained  in  the  ex- 
pression ;  neither  is  the  idea  present  that  they  are  the 
adopted  sons  of  God,  having  stood  tlie  period  of  prol)ation 
with  success,  and  now  received  into  His  family.  Tliis 
cannot  be  meant ;  for  in  Job  the  Satan  appears  among  the 
'  sons  of  Elohim,'  and  is  one  of  them.  AVe  found  the  name 
Eloliim  to  mean  'miglits,'  'powers,'  and  it  is  with  tliis 
meaning  that  tlie  name  is  given  to  the  angels.  In  contrast 
with  man,  angels  belong  to  the  class  of  Elohim.  In  Ps. 
xxix.  1  our  Version  reads  quite  riglitly  if  the  name  is  to  be 


294   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

interpreted,  "  Give  unto  the  Lord,  0  ye  mighty,  give  unto 
the  Lord  glory  and  strength  " — literally  :  "  Give  unto  the 
Lord,  ye  sons  of  Elim."  The  '  sons  of  Elim '  form  the 
attendants  and  ministers  around  Jehovah  ;  and  in  the  end 
of  the  Psalm  it  is  said :  "  In  His  palace  doth  every  one  say, 
Glorious  ! "  In  Ps.  Ixxxix.  6  the  same  expression  is  trans- 
lated "  sons  of  the  mighty " :  "  Who  in  heaven  can  be 
compared  with  Jehovah,  who  among  the  sons  of  the  mighty 
— Bene  Elim — can  be  likened  unto  the  Lord  ? " 

The  angels,  therefore,  in  contrast  with  the  human  race, 
belong  to  the  class  of  Elohim.  They  are  sons  of  Elohim. 
The  exegetical  tradition  firmly  reposes  on  this  fact.  And 
perhaps  in  some  cases  it  may  apply  the  name  Elohim  to 
angels  where  it  properly  means  God,  as  in  Ps.  viii.  6  :  "  Tliou 
hast  made  him  a  little  lower  than  Elohim  "  ;  in  the  Septua- 
gint  *  angels,'  though  modern  interpreters  prefer  '  God.' 
I  am  not  sure  whether  the  exegetical  tradition  here  be  not 
more  in  accordance  with  the  modes  of  thinking  in  the  Old 
Testament. 

It  might  be  an  interesting  question  how  the  same 
name  Elohim  came  to  designate  God  and  this  class  of 
beings.  Perhaps  we  should  be  satisfied  with  the  general 
explanation,  that  the  name,  meaning  '  powers,'  is  applied 
from  the  standpoint  of  men  to  all  that  is  above  man,  to 
the  region  lying  above  him.  Though  the  same  name  is 
given,  the  two  are  never  confounded  in  Scripture.  But  if 
this  answer  does  not  seem  satisfactory,  our  inquiries  will 
throw  us  back  into  a  prehistorical  period,  a  period  where 
the  genesis  of  the  general  name  Elohim  and  its  general 
applications  must  1)e  investigated.  From  the  beginning  of 
Scripture  we  find  God  and  these  Elohim  called  by  the 
same  name ;  He  is  surrounded  by  them ;  they  are  His 
servants,  and  they  minister  to  His  purposes  of  grace  and 
providence.  We  can  quite  well  perceive,  however,  how 
this  lu'oke  open  a  line  of  thouglit  in  another  direction. 
The  false  gods  of  heathenism  were  also  Elohim ;  and  in  tliis 
way  certain  classes  of  angels  and  these  gods  were  brought 
into  connection  or  identification,  and  the  gods  of  the  nations 


SUPRAHUMAN    MESSENGERS    AND    MINISTERS     295 

became  demons  or  evil  aiigoLs.  TJiere  is  a  curious  Huctua- 
tion  in  the  exegetical  tradition,  due,  perliaps,  to  this  mode 
of  conce])tion.  In  Ps.  xcvii.  7  it  is  said  :  "  Confounded  be 
all  they  tliat  serve  graven  images,  that  boast  themselves  of 
idols:  worship  Him,  all  ye  gods";  but  tlio  Sei)tuagint 
renders :  "  worship  Him,  all  ye  angels." 

These  Elohim,  or  sons  of  Elohim,  form  the  council  of 
Jehovah.  They  surround  Him,  and  minister  to  Him.  He 
and  they  are  Elohim.  And  it  is  from  this  point  of  view 
that  some  explain  the  use  of  the  plural  in  such  passages 
as  "Let  us  make  man"  (Gen.  i,  26);  "Let  us  go  down 
and  there  confound  their  language "  (Gen.  xi.  7).  In 
character  these  angels  are  said  to  excel  in  strength,  and  to 
be  mighty  (Ps.  ciii.  20);  they  are  styled  CK^^i^  (Job  v.  1, 
XV.  15;  Ps.  Ixxxix.  6,  8;  Zech.  xiv.  5;  Dan.  viii.  i:]). 
And  from  their  ministering  office  the  representation  appears 
in  Job  that  they  interpret  to  men  God's  afflictive  pro- 
vidences with  them ;  and,  on  the  other  side,  might  be 
supposed  to  receive  men's  complaints  of  this  too  severe 
chastisement :  "  Cry  then  ;  is  there  any  that  will  answer 
thee?  and  to  which  of  the  'p  wilt  thou  turn?"  (v.  1). 
The  passage  is  poetical,  and  merely  touclies  upon  a  supposed 
turn  that  Job's  mind  might  take.  It  does  not  go  the 
length  of  teaching  that  it  is  part  of  the  office  of  angels 
to  intercede,  or  even  to  represent.  Although  these  excel 
in  purity  far  above  men,  the  profound  consciousness  of 
the  Creator's  holiness  in  Israel  represents  Him  as  finding 
something  to  blame  in  them :  "  He  charges  His  angels  with 
error"  (Job  iv.  18).  Names  are  also  given  to  these 
angels  as  having  certain  characteristics,  or  filling  certain 
offices,  as  seraphim,  cherubim. 

There  is  another  class  of  name^  given  to  tliese  beings, 
however,  which  is  of  great  interest.  They  are  called  angels, 
D''3Np?3,  i.e,  messengers,  and  D''n"l^'p,  i.e.  ministers.  These 
names  describe  their  office,  and  the  place  they  have  in  the 
providence  of  God.  All  the  Old  Testament  is  filled  with 
illustrations  of  their  operations  in  tliis  sphere,  and  examples 
need  not  be  cited.      "  The  angels  represent  in  a  personal 


296   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

manner,"  says  Hermann  Schultz,  "  God's  care  of  His 
])eople;  Ihoy  are  the  medium  of  His  government  of  His 
kingdom,  and  of  His  interference  in  the  alTairs  of  the  world. 
They  reveal  the  will  of  God  in  ref^ence  to  the  present  and 
the  future,  call  men  of  God  to^the  undertaking  of  great 
deeds  which  God  will  accomplish  by  their  hand  (as  Moses, 
Jerubbaal),  deliver  the  pious  out  of  danger,  and  execute  the 
judgments  of  God  against  the  sinful  world,  or  the  dis- 
obedient in  Israel,  as  in  the  case  of  David.  When  they 
manifest  themselves  among  men,  it  is  always  as  armed 
with  some  commission  from  God,  which  they  come  to 
execute."  ^ 

2.    The  Angel  of  the  Lord. 

As  God's  manifestations  of  His  will  and  His  inter- 
ferences in  the  world  are  predominantly  in  the  way  of 
carrying  out  His  purpose  of  redemption,  the  angels  usually 
appear  on  missions  of  mercy  or  in  furtherance  of  the  salva- 
tion, either  of  individuals,  or  of  the  people  as  a  whole. 
Prominent  among  those  who  labour  in  this  direction  stands 
one  angelic  figure,  who  has  always  attracted  largely  the 
attention  of  interpreters,  and  regarding  whom  very  diverse 
judgments  have  been  passed,  '  the  Angel  of  the  Lord.'  It 
lias  not  been  uncommon  to  find  in  him  a  manifestation  of 
the  Logos  or  Son  of  God,  and  in  his  appearance  among 
men  a  pre-intimation  of  the  incarnation.  With  regard  to 
the  name  '  Angel  of  the  Lord,'  of  course  any  angel  may 
l)ear  this  name.  And  in  many  places  where  such  a  name 
is  applied,  there  is  no  reason  to  consider  that  the  angelic 
being  to  whom  it  is  given  is  in  anjt  way  distinguished  from 
others.  Thus  in  1  Kings  xix.  5,  it  is  said  tliat  as  Elijah 
lay  under  a  juniper  tree  an  angel  touched  him  ;  and  then 
further  on  in  the  narrative :  "  And  the  Angel  of  the  Lord 
said  unto  him."  The  definiteness  here  arises  from  the  fact 
of  the  angel  having  been  already  mentioned.  So  in  the 
history  of  David  it  is  said  that  the  angel  stretched  out  his 
hand  upon  Jerusalem ;  and  then  it  is  added  that  the  angel 

1  Jit.  ThcoL,  i.  p.  560. 


THE    ANCEL    OF    THE    LORD  297 

of  the  Lord  was  standing  l)y  tlie  floor  of  Araininli  tlio 
Jebiisite  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  10).  Tassages  of  a  similar  Idnd 
are  numerous. 

But  there  are  many  passages  of  a  different  kind,  where 
the  deliniteness  of  the  expression  '  the  Angel  of  the  Lord  ' 
cannot  be  explained  in  this  way,  and  where  things  are  said 
of  this  angel  tliat  are  scarcely  applicable  to  ordinary  angelic 
messengers.  Thus  at  the  period  of  the  Exodus,  the  Angel 
of  the  Lord  led  Israel ;  and  it  is  said  regarding  him  :  "  Be- 
hold, I  send  an  Angel  before  thee,  to  keep  thee  in  the  way, 
and  to  bring  thee  into  the  place  which  I  have  prepared. 
Beware  of  him,  and  obey  his  voice,  provoke  him  not ;  for 
he  will  not  pardon  your  transgressions :  for  My  name  is  in 
him.  But  if  thou  shalt  indeed  obey  his  voice,  and  do  all 
that  I  speak,"  etc.  (Ex.  xxiii.  20-23).  And  in  Ex.  xxxii.  34 
it  is  said :  *'  Mine  Angel  shall  go  before  thee  " ;  which  in 
Ex.  xxxiii.  14  is  varied  :  "  My  presence  C^S,  My  face)  shall  go, 
and  I  will  give  thee  rest " ;  and  in  Isa.  Ixiii.  9  the  two  are 
combined  :  "  In  all  their  affliction  he  was  afflicted,  and  the 
Angel  of  His  preseuce  0''JS),  i.e.  the  Angel  of  His  face,  the 
Angel  who  was  His  face)  saved  them ;  in  his  love  and  in 
liis  pity  he  redeemed  them."  Here  regarding  this  Angel 
two  things  are  said :  that  Jehovah's  name,  i.e.  His  revealed 
character,  is  in  him  ;  and  that  he  is  Jehovah's  face,  i.e.  the 
face  of  Jehovah  may  be  seen  in  him.  They  wlio  look  upon 
him  look  upon  Jehovah,  and  in  him  all  that  Jehovah  is  is 
present.  Hence  he  saves,  and  will  not  pardon  transgres- 
sion, though  he  has  the  power.  With  these  passages  are  to 
be  combined  others  which  describe  the  emotions  of  those  to 
whom  the  Angel  appeared,  e.g.  Jacob  said  :  "  I  have  seen  God 
face  to  face,  and  my  life  is  preserved"  (Gen.  xxxii.  30); 
and  when  he  recurs  to  this  event  in  his  dying  prophecy,  he 
says :  "  The  Angel  which  redeemed  me  from  all  evil,  bless 
the  lads"  (xlviii.  16). 

These  passages  indicate  that  in  the  minds  of  those  to 
whom  this  angel  appealed,  it  was  an  appearance  of  Jeliovah 
in  person.  Jehovali's  face  was  seen.  His  name  was  re- 
vealed.     Tlie    Angel    of   the    Lord    is   Jehovah   present   in 


298   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

definite  time  aud  particular  place.  What  is  emphatic  is 
that  Jehovali  here  is  fully  present.  In  particular  provi- 
dences one  may  trace  the  presence  of  Jehovah  in  influence 
and  operation.  In  ordinary  angelic  appearances  one  may 
discover  Jehovah  present  on  some  side  of  His  being,  in 
some  attribute  of  His  character ;  in  the  Angel  of  the  Lord 
He  is  fully  present,  as  the  covenant  God  of  His  people,  to 
redeem  them.  It  is  the  fulness  of  the  manifestation  that 
is  emphasised  in  the  name.  Now,  it  may  be  difficult  to 
say  whether  the  pious  in  Israel  conceived  this  full  mani- 
festation as  effected  through  the  medium  of  an  angel  like 
other  partial  revelations  of  God's  will  and  of  His  power,  or 
considered  it  a  thing  quite  distinct.  On  the  one  hand, 
while  freely  considering  that  Jehovah  used  instruments  to 
effect  His  purposes  by,  they  were  jealous  of  ever  seeming 
to  confound  Jehovah  with  His  agents.  On  the  other,  the 
manifestation  is  called  the  Angel  of  the  Lord,  like  other 
manifestations.  Undoubtedly  also  Jehovah  is  not  conceived 
as  present  in  this  Angel  in  such  a  manner  that  there  is  not 
still  preserved  the  distinction  between  him  and  Jehovah. 
The  Lord  speaks  of  him  as  '  My  Angel,'  and  the  '  Angel 
of  My  face.'  But  of  course  there  would  be  a  distinction 
between  Jehovah  manifest  for  purposes  of  redemption  and 
Jehovah  in  Himself. 

This  particular  point,  therefore,  is  not  easily  settled. 
But  one  can  readily  perceive  what  Messianic  elements 
lay  in  the  idea  of  the  Angel  of  the  Lord, — who  was  at 
least  a  full  manifestation  of  Jehovah  in  His  redeeming 
power, — and  how  far  the  ancient  Church  was  on  right 
lines  when  it  believed  it  could  trace  here  the  appear- 
ance of  the  Son  of  God.  The  question  whether  we  are, 
from  our  more  enlightened  point  of  view,  to  consider  this 
Angel  of  the  Lord  a  manifestation  of  the  Son  or  a  mani- 
festation of  God,  is  not  of  much  moment.  On  the  one 
hand,  further  revelation  has  revealed  that  God  manifested 
is  God  in  the  Son,  and  it  is  not  unnatural  with  the  ancient 
Church  to  suppose  that  these  preliminary  theophanies  of 
God  in  human  form  were  manifestations  of  the  Son,  who 


ANOxELS    AND    PROVIDENCE  299 

at  last  was  manifest  in  tlic  tlesli.  To  Old  Testaiiiciit 
saints,  of  course,  this  view  would  not  occur.  The  truth 
which  such  theophanies  would  suggest  to  them  was  that 
God  truly  manifested  Himself  among  them,  at  least  on 
great  occasions,  for  their  redemption  ;  in  His  full  personality, 
in  the  form  of  man,  He  came  and  was  seen  by  them.  He 
did  not  yet  abide  among  them  ;  but  both  the  possibility  of 
this,  and  the  hope  of  it,  and  the  longing  for  it,  must 
have  been  awakened  in  their  minds. 

We  have  thought  it  not  improper  to  run  out  one  side 
of  angelic  manifestation  and  operation  to  its  culminating 
point.  But  we  must  now  return  and  take  up  the  other. 
God's  providence  is  not  exclusively  benevolent  or  redemp- 
tive. Or  if  you  assume  that  upon  the  whole  it  is  so,  and 
that  a  laro^e  croodness  characterises  all  that  He  does,  and 
that  His  redemptive  purpose  is  strictly  His  whole  purpose, 
embracing  all  within  it,  there  are  at  least  particular  provi- 
dences that  in  themselves,  whatever  they  may  be  as  parts 
of  a  great  whole,  are  not  benevolent.  God  often  interferes 
in  the  world  to  judge  or  to  destroy.  In  a  way  less  severe 
He  interferes  to  punish  and  chasten.  And  even  in  a  way 
less  severe  still,  though  full  of  pain.  He  interferes  to  prove 
and  try.  Now,  on  these  three  lines  of  providence  not  dis- 
tinctively benevolent,  the  angels  also  appear  as  mediating 
the  interference  of  God  in  the  affairs  of  men.  The  angel 
of  death,  or  destroying  angel,  smote  the  Egyptians,  and  slew 
their  firstborn.  The  angel  of  the  pestilence  stretched  his 
sword  over  Jerusalem,  and  chastised  Israel  for  their  own 
sin  and  the  pride  of  their  king.  And  in  connection  with 
the  tempting  or  proving  of  the  saints,  the  most  remarkable 
instances  of  angelic  activity  that  Scripture  presents  to  us 
are  to  be  found. 

It  is  to  be  observed  that,  as  a  rule,  the  angels  who 
execute  God's  commissions  in  providence  are  mere  ministers. 
Any  personal  share  or  sympathy  with  the  operations  that 
they  perform  is  not  Ijrouglit  out.  They  are  so  far  neutral, 
or  morally  indifferent.  The  destroying  angel  is  not  called 
a  bad  or  ci'uel  angel.      And  the  angels  that  hurry  Lot  out 


300   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

of  Sodom  are  not  represented  as  acting  out  of  pity  to  the 
old  man.  They  merely  perform  with  skill  and  promptitude 
the  connnission  entrusted  to  them.  The  angels  are  gener- 
ally, when  enacting  the  providence  of  God,  mere  servants, 
whose  sympathy  with  the  operations  they  perform  is  not 
dwelt  upon.  In  other  connections  the  angels  are  called 
'  holy  ones,'  are  regarded  as  greatly  more  pure  than  man, 
and  are  descrihed  as  continually  praising  Jehovah.  But  as 
His  servants  among  men  their  moral  character  generally 
retreats.  It  is  necessary  to  remember  this,  otherwise  we 
might  draw  conclusions  that  would  be  too  hasty,  or  at  least 
too  broad,  in  regard  to  those  angels  whom  we  observe  sub- 
serving God's  purpose  in  His  providences  that  are  afflictive. 

3.  Satan. 

In  the  prologue  to  the  Book  of  Job,  and  in  the  3rd 
chapter  of  Zechariah,  we  observe  an  angel  who  perhaps 
represents  in  his  operation  the  culmination  of  angelic  service 
in  the  line  of  providences  not  strictly  benevolent.  The 
representations  in  these  two  passages  are  highly  dramatic 
and  in  some  respects  ideal,  and  they  must  be  handled  with 
circumspection.  In  Job  the  scene  presented  is  something 
like  a  cabinet  council  of  heaven.  The  King,  Jehovah,  is 
on  His  throne,  and  His  ministers  appear  to  stand  before 
Him.  These  ministers  are  the  sons  of  Elohim.  Among 
them  one  presents  himself,  also  one  of  the  sons  of  Elohim, 
who  is  named  the  Satan,  or  adversary.  The  presence  of 
the  article  with  the  name  shows  that  it  had  not  yet  become 
a  proper  name.  The  adversary  describes  this  angel's 
function.  The  word  Satan  means  one  who  opposes  another 
in  his  purpose  (Num.  xxii.  22,  23),  or  pretensions  and 
claims  (1  Kings  xi.  14,  23,  25  ;  Zech.  iii.  1);  or  generally. 
*  The  Satan '  is  that  one  of  God's  ministers  whose  part  it 
is  to  oppose  men  in  their  pretensions  to  a  right  standing 
before  God  (Zech.  iii.  1  and  in  Job  i.) ;  that  is,  tlie  minister 
who  represents  and  executes  God's  trying,  sifting  provi- 
dence.     He  is  one  of  God's  messengers,  who  appears  with 


SATAN    IN    ZECHARIAH  301 

other  sons  of  Eloliiin,  l)eforc  Joliovali's  throne,  to  report 
his  service,  and  to  receive  coniniissions,  parts  of  God's  will, 
which  he  is  to  execute.  It  is  in  tlie  exercise  of  this  oflice 
that  he  conies  into  contact  with  Job,  and  gives  expression 
to  the  sentiments  to  which  we  shall  immediately  refer. 

The  scene  in  Zechariah,  cliap.  iii.,  is  not  materially 
different  from  tliat  in  Job.  Tlie  people  had  just  been 
restored  from  exile.  Their  restoration  was  the  token  of 
God's  favour,  and  of  their  right  standing  with  Him.  His 
anger  was  turned  away,  and  He  comforted  them.  Yet 
the  restoration  was  a  miserable  restitution  of  the  ancient 
glory  of  Israel.  Old  men  who  remembered  the  former 
Temple  wept  at  the  sight  of  tlie  meanness  of  the  new  one ; 
and  the  people  had  few  of  the  manly  virtues  and  little  of 
the  deep  godliness  of  their  fathers  in  the  best  times  of 
Israel.  And  the  thought  could  not  but  rise  in  men's 
hearts  of  the  unworthiness  of  the  present  people,  and 
doubts  of  the  truth  of  their  repentance  ;  and  whetlier,  in 
fact,  God  Jhad  returned  and  been  reconciled  to  them,  and 
was  founding  anew  His  kingdom  among  them.  These 
feelings  and  doubts  are  dramatically  expressed  in  the 
scene  where  Joshua,  the  high  priest,  the  representative  of 
the  people,  is  exhibited  as  standing,  clothed  in  filtliy  gar- 
ments, before  the  Lord,  and  the  Satan  standing  at  his  right 
hand  to  oppose  him.  Both  in  this  passage  and  in  Job  the 
Satan  comes  in  between  God  and  men ;  he  opposes  men  in 
their  pretensions  to  a  right  standing  before  God ;  in  other 
words,  he  represents  the  severe,  trying,  searching  side  of 
God's  nature  and  providence,  in  opposition  to  the  side  of 
His  love  and  grace  and  complaisance  in  men. 

So  far  all  is  plain.  And  the  representation  might  go 
no  furtlier,  and  we  should  be  obliged  to  concede  that,  as  is 
frequently  the  case,  the  Satan  is  left  a  mere  minister,  and, 
so  far  as  appears,  morally  indifferent.  But  obviously,  in  Job 
at  least,  the  representation  goes  further.  Even  in  Zecliariah 
there  seems  a  reflection  on  his  uncompassionate  and  inhuman 
performance  of  his  office :  "  The  Lord  rebuke  tliee,  Satan : 
is  not  this  a  brand   plucked  from   tlie   burning?"  (iii.  3). 


302   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

This  insistence  on  human  weakness  and  guilt,  and  the 
general  raggcdness  of  human  nature  and  tlie  Church  before 
God,  as  seen  in  the  filthy  garments  of  Joshua,  was  over- 
done. There  was  satisfaction  to  liini  in  tliis  condition  of 
men ;  he  desired  to  hinder  the  reconciliation  of  Jehovah  and 
His  people.  In  the  case  of  Job  he  has  nothing  outwardly 
to  found  upon,  but  he  insinuates  selfishness  in  Job  as  at  the 
root  of  his  religion.  He  is  no  believer  in  human  virtue. 
He  envies  and  hates  the  man  who  is  the  subject  of  God's 
love  and  trust,  and  misleads  God  to  destroy  him.  He 
hopes  to  break  the  bond  of  faith  that  unites  Job  to  God, 
by  means  of  the  severe  and  inexplicable  calamities  which 
he  brings  upon  him.  The  heart  of  the  Satan  is  already  in 
his  work.      He  begins  to  carry  it  on  on  his  own  account. 

It  would  not  perhaps  be  fair  to  draw  more  from  these 
passages ;  subsequent  revelation  will  supply  additional 
details.  We  naturally  put  the  question.  Is  the  Satan  here 
a  fallen  spirit  ?  Of  course,  there  is  no  allusion  to  anything 
in  his  history.  All  that  is  touched  upon  is  that  one  of  the 
Bene  Elohim  is  called  the  Satan,  and  that  his  function  is  to 
oppose  and  accuse  men  in  their  relations  to  God,  to  make 
it  apparent  that  these  relations  are  not  right,  or  to  produce 
a  displacement  of  these  relations.  This  is  all  that  mean- 
time is  stated.  But  we  must  recall  to  remembrance  here  a 
peculiarity  in  early  revelation,  and  indeed  in  all  revelation, 
but  one  particularly  conspicuous  in  the  Old  Testament — 
its  tendency  to  refer  all  things  back  to  God.  As  Isaiah 
says :  "  I  form  the  light,  and  create  darkness :  I  make 
peace,  and  create  evil :  I  the  Lord  do  all  these  things " 
(xlv.  7).  Hence  the  evil  spirit  that  troubled  Saul,  for 
example,  is  called  "  an  evil  spirit  from  the  Lord " 
(\  Sam.  xvi.  14).  In  the  remarkable  passage  in  1  Kings 
xxii.  20-22,  where  the  false  prophets  persuade  Ahab  to 
go  up  to  Eamoth-gilead,  it  is  said :  "  And  the  Lord  said, 
Who  will  persuade  Ahal),  that  he  may  go  up  and  fall  at 
Eamoth-gilead  ?  .  .  .  And  there  came  forth  a  spirit,  and 
stood  before  the  Lord,  and  said.  I  will  persuade  him.  And 
the  Lord  said  unto  him,  Wherewith  ?     And  he  said,  I  will 


GODETS   VIEW    OF   SATAN  30o 

go  forth,  and  will  be  a  lying  spirit  in  the  nioutli  of  all  his 
prophets.  Now  therefore,  said  Micah,  the  Lord  hath  put  a 
lying  spirit  in  the  mouth  of  tliese  tliy  pro})liets."  And 
what  is  emphasised  in  the  passage  in  Job  is  not  wliether 
the  Satan  be  an  evil  spirit  or  no,  or  a  fallen  spirit,  but 
this,  that  he  is  in  the  hand  of  God,  and  tliat  whatever  he 
performs  is  only  under  permission  of  God  and  in  furtlier- 
ance  of  His  designs. 

This  element  in  our  idea  of  a  fallen  spirit,  namely, 
that  he  is  filled  with  hatred  of  God  Himself,  and  an  eager 
desire  to  counteract  His  designs,  is  nowhere  visible  in 
the  Old  Testament.  Perhaps  in  our  popular  theology 
we  exaggerate  this  idea,  and  give  to  the  kingdom  of  evil 
an  independence  of  the  Divine  will,  and  assign  to  it  an 
antagonism  to  God  who  is  over  all,  which  goes  l)eyond 
what  Scripture  warrants.  Godet  goes  the  length  of  saying 
that  Job's  trials  were  inflicted  ,'  ^t  to  show  the  Satan  that 
his  insinuations  against  Job  were  false.  But  this  elevates 
the  adversary  into  a  prominence  and  an  importance  which 
is  not  at  all  in  keeping  with  Old  Testament  conceptions  of 
the  relation  of  God  to  evil,  and  its  subordination  to  Him. 
The  Satan  in  Job  does  not  come  into  such  prominence  as  to 
be  a  party  at  all.  He  is  simply  God's  minister  to  try  Job, 
and  when  his  work  is  done  he  is  no  more  heard  of. 

Godet  in  his  interesting  essay  on  Job  introduces  this 
idea  into  the  words  of  Satan — "  Does  Job  serve  God  for 
nought  ? " — which  he  considers  a  covert  attack  on  God 
Himself.  "  If  it  be  so,  God  is  nothing  more  than  a  poten- 
tate flattered  by  cowards ;  He  has  no  friends,  no  children, 
nothing  but  mercenaries  and  slaves.  .  .  .  Satan  has  then 
discovered  the  vulnerable  point  in  God  Himself.  The  in- 
stinct of  hatred  has  served  him  well  .  .  .  wliile  shooting 
that  fiery  dart,  which  reduces  to  ashes  the  piety  of  Job,  it 
is  really  at  the  lieart  of  God  that  he  has  aimed,"  etc.^ 

However  tlie  words  of  Satan  may  serve  to  suggest  tliis 
idea,  tlie  idea  appears  to  me  one  quite  foreign   to   the   Old 

'  See  Godet' s  Biblical  Studies  on  the  Old  Teatament,  edited  by  tlie  Hou. 
and  Rev.  W.  H.  Lyttletou,  p.  199  if.— Ed. 


304        THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

Testament.  The  Satan  is  tlie  servant  of  Jeliovah,  and  the 
idea  is  rather  that  he  is  zealous  for  God's  honour,  than 
that  he  is  the  covert  and  sneering  foe  even  of  Jehovah 
Himself. 

It  may  also  be  remarked  that,  as  it  is  the  office  of  the 
Satan  to  try  God's  saints  in  the  present  economy  where  sin 
has  entered,  and  as  all  trial  may  have  the  effect  of  seducing 
them  and  tempting  them  to  evil,  there  is  nothing  a  priori 
against  the  idea  tliat  he  may  have  been  employed  in  God's 
hand  to  try  those  innocent,  but  whose  innocence  was  not 
yet  confirmed  by  voluntary  determination  to  maintain  it. 
And  thus  there  is  notliing  against  the  idea  that  the  tempta- 
tion in  the  form  of  a  Serpent,  recorded  in  Gen.  iii.,  proceeded 
from  the  Satan.  It  is  true,  Old  Testament  Scripture  does 
not  say  directly  anywhere  that  the  Satan  and  the  Serpent 
were  identical,  or  that  the  one  used  the  other.  The  first 
direct  statement  that  Satan  was  the  tempter  in  the  Garden 
occurs  in  an  Apocryphal  book.  In  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon 
ii.  2  3  it  is  said :  "  For  God  created  man  to  be  immortal ; 
.  .  .  nevertheless  through  envy  of  the  Devil  came  death 
into  the  world."  There  are,  however,  passages  in  the  Old 
Testament  which  form  a  transition  to  this,  where  the 
Serpent  is  spoken  of  as  the  foe  of  God  and  of  His  people, 
and  the  like. 

There  is  one  other  prophetic  passage  which  has  to  be 
noticed.  The  gods  of  the  heathen  nations  were,  of  course, 
called  Elolhim.  So  were  the  angelic  beings.  It  was  not 
unnatural,  as  we  have  said,  that  they  should  be  brought 
into  connection  and  identified,  and  that  the  gods  in  this 
way  should  become  demons,  i.e.  evil  angelic  spirits.  And 
already  in  the  Book  of  Daniel  each  nation  is  represented  as 
having  a  guardian  spirit,  who  in  the  heavenly  or  super- 
human world  is  its  prince ;  and  in  this  superhuman  world 
conflicts  are  waged,  which  decide  the  relations  of  nations 
to  one  another  on  earth.  This  idea  is  but  a  transference 
into  heavenly  places  of  the  conflict  between  the  God  of 
Israel  and  the  gods  of  the  nations,  which  is  usually  waged 
on  earth. 


THE    H0ST8    OF    HKAVEN  305 

But  the  ideiitiii cation  of  tlio  gods  with  the  angelic 
Eloliini  was  helped  on  another  line.  The  heathen  nations 
worshipped  the  hosts  of  heaven — the  visible  powers  of 
which,  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  were  to  them  but  embodi- 
ments of  spiritual  powers  behind.  In  this  way  it  was 
natural  again  to  bring  these  gods  of  tlie  heathen  into  con- 
nection with  the  Bene  Mohim,  or  to  identify  them  with 
them.  The  expression  *  the  hosts  of  heaven,'  though 
properly  meaning  the  mere  visible  starry  hosts,  acquired 
then  the  deeper  sense  of  the  heavenly  powers.  Even  when 
Jehovah  is  called  Jehovah  of  hosts,  the  idea  is  that  He 
can  lead  hosts  of  angels,  as  Christ  speaks  of  receiving  to 
aid  Him  more  than  twelve  legions  of  angels  if  He  should 
desire  it  (Matt.  xxvi.  53).  And  it  is  certainly  in  this  sense 
that  the  passage  in  Isa.  xxiv.  21,  22  is  to  be  interpreted: 
"  It  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day,  that  the  Lord  shall 
punish  the  host  of  the  high  that  are  on  high,  and  the  kings 
of  the  earth  upon  the  earth.  And  they  shall  be  gathered 
together,  as  prisoners  are  gathered  in  the  pit;  and  they 
shall  be  shut  up  in  prison,  and  after  many  days  shall  they 
be  visited."  This  judgment  is  that  of  the  '  day  of  the 
Lord.'  It  falls  on  kings  of  the  earth  upon  the  earth,  and 
on  the  host  of  heaven  that  are  in  heaven.  Both  shall 
be  shut  up  in  the  pit,  and  after  many  days  they  shall  be 
visited,  i.e.  released. 

But  one  perceives  ideas  that  afterwards  became  more 
clear — of  spirits  reserved  in  chains  and  darkness,  of  a  bind- 
ing of  Satan,  and  a  loosing  of  him  again  to  deceive  the 
nations.  The  Old  Testament  ideas  originate  in  a  variety 
of  ways,  and  only  gradually  unite  to  form  the  general  con- 
ceptions which  we  find  in  tlie  New  Testament. 

Tlie  increasing  liglit  of  revelation  threw  the  figure  of 
the  Satan  into  deeper  shadow,  and  with  the  full  manifesta- 
tion of  redemption  came  a  clearer  knowledge  and  exhibition 
of  his  power  and  malignity.  Our  Lord  is  said  to  have 
been  "manifested  that  He  might  destroy  the  works  of 
the  Devil"  (1  John  iii.  8).  And  at  that  thne  the  anti- 
thesis between  the  redemptive  power  and  the  destructive 

20 


306   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

came  very  strongly  out  in  a  hundred  points.  And  the 
Apocalypse,  which  may  be  called  the  drama  of  Christ,  throws 
the  action  into  the  form  of  a  conflict  between  Satan  him- 
self and  those  wliom  he  inspires  and  in  whom  he  is 
incarnate,  such  as  the  Beast  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
Saviour  with  His  Saints  on  the  other.  But  there  is  no 
dualism,  no  power  of  evil  co-ordinate  with  God :  "  Greater 
is  He  that  is  in  us  than  he  that  is  in  the  world"  (1  John 
iv.  4).  And  this  view  prevails  very  strongly  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  it  is  not  amiss  for  us  to  recur  to  it  when 
weary  or  like  to  faint  in  our  minds. 


X  DOCTRINE  OF  REDEMPTION—PRIESTHOOD 
AND  ATONEMENT. 

1.   The  Priest. 

The  four  great  ideal,  or  as  they  are  sometimes  called 
typical,  figures  in  the  Old  Testament,  namely,  the  Prophet, 
the  King,  the  Priest,  and  the  Servant  of  the  Lord,  have 
each  their  special  significance.  They  have  this  both  in 
themselves  and  in  the  ideal  character  in  which  tliey  point 
to  that  which  shall  be  when  the  perfect  and  final  condition 
of  the  theocracy  is  realised.  The  last-mentioned,  sometimes 
the  saint  or  the  '  holy  one,'  sometimes  the  people,  is,  as  the 
name  indicates,  one  who  serves  the  Lord,  that  is,  in  bringing 
His  truth  to  the  nations.  The  service  rendered  by  this 
'  Servant  of  the  Lord  '  is  a  public  redemptive  service  ;  and 
what  makes  the  figure  of  this  personality  so  remarkable 
is  the  suffering  which  he  undergoes  in  his  great  vocation  of 
serving  Jehovah.  At  present,  however,  we  look  at  certain 
points  relating  to  the  Priest. 

It  is  remarkable  that  in  the  Old  Testament  the  priest 
himself  is  not  to  so  large  an  extent  a  redemptive  figure  as 
we  should  anticipate.  And  tlie  features  which  are  attri- 
buted to  him  in  the  New  Testament  are  partly  borrowed 
from  the  more  sublime  figure  of  the  Servant  of  the  Lord  in 


THE   IDEA    OF   PRIESTHOOD  307 

Isaiah.  The  sacriiicial  .sysieni  is  loft  in  tlic  Old  Tcslaiiioiifc 
without  explanation  as  regards  redemptive  relations,  except 
in  a  general  way.  Throughout  the  S('ii])tures,  till  we  reach 
the  linal  chapters  of  Isaiah,  the  animal  sacrilices  receive  no 
explanation,  and  are  not  lifted  up  into  any  higher  region. 
In  the  final  chapters  of  Isaiah  a  step  is  taken  wliich  is  of 
the  profoundest  significance.  Sacrifice  is  translated  out  of 
the  animal  sphere  into  that  of  the  human.  The  Servant 
makes  hiniself  an  olfering  for  sin.  To  us  who  are  familiar 
with  this  idea  the  immense  advance  made  in  this  conception 
is  apt  to  be  overlooked. 

The  word  priest  means,  perhaps,  minister,  that  is,  one 
who  serves  Jehovah  in  worship.  The  covenant  is  a  state 
of  relation  between  God  and  men,  in  which  He  is  their 
God  and  they  are  His  people,  which  means  His  worshipping 
people.  The  term  which  expresses  their  translation  into 
the  state  of  fitness  to  serve  Jehovah  in  all  the  exercises  of 
worship  is  '  sanctify.'  Sandification  or  consecration  is 
effected  through  a  sacrifice  of  purification,  by  which  the 
people  is  cleansed  from  sins  to  serve  God.  The  term 
expressing  this  condition  of  the  people  in  covenant  with 
God  as  His  worshipping  people  is  'holy.'  Now  the 
covenant  was  made  with  the  people.  Hence  they  were  a 
*  holy  nation,'  that  is,  a  nation  dedicated  to  Jehovah  for  His 
service.  The  idea  of  service  is  an  essential  element  of  the 
idea  of  sanctity  or  holiness  in  the  people ;  because  this  is 
the  only  sense  in  which  moral  beings  can  belong  to 
Jehovah,  namely,  as  His  worshippers,  doing  Him  service. 
Now,  to  serve  Jehovah  thus  in  His  worship  is  to  be  a 
priest.  Hence  Israel  is  called  a  '  kingdom  of  priests.'  The 
nation  was  priest  or  minister  of  the  Lord,  and  every 
member  of  it  was  privileged  to  draw  near  to  Him  in  service. 

Now,  it  is  very  necessary  to  maintain  this  point  of  view  ; 
for  otherwise  some  things  in  the  history  of  Israel  will  re- 
main unexplained.  Israel  is  a  priestly  people,  and  ideally 
no  Israelite  has  any  privileges  over  another  in  drawing 
near  and  presenting  offerings  before  Jehovali.  Throughout 
the  history  of  Israel   we  find  this  privilege  largely  taken 


308   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

advantage  of.  Any  Israelite  felt  himself  entitled  to  offer 
sacrifice  before  the  Lord.  Gideon,  IManoali  the  father  of 
Samson,  King  Saul,  David,  Solomon,  every  person,  where 
duty  prompted,  offered  sacrifice  to  the  Lord.  It  was  the 
privilege  of  Israelites. 

This  privilege  of  individuals,  however,  did  not  interfere 
with  a  public  and  national  worship,  any  more  than  this 
later  superseded  it.  The  covenant  was  made  with  the 
people,  which  was  a  unity.  And  the  worship  of  this 
unity  was  carried  on  in  a  central  sanctuary^  Further,  it 
is  evident  that  it  had  to  be  carried  on  by  a  representative 
body  called  priests,  for  the  whole  nation  could  not  at  all 
times  assemble  within  the  central  sanctuary.  It  had  to  be 
carried  on  by  a  smaller  body  for  other  reasons  also,  chiefly  in 
order  to  indicate  what  the  conditions  of  such  service  were, 
and  in  what  state  of  sanctity  those  must  be  who  approached 
to  worship  Jehovah.  The  parallel  may  be  drawn  between 
the  condition  of  things  in  Israel  and  that  in  the  Christian 
Church.  Worship  and  mutual  edification  are  the  objects 
had  in  view  by  the  Christian  people,  and  for  these  ends 
they  meet  in  public  worship.  But  it  is  manifest  that  the 
general  body  must,  so  to  speak,  resolve  or  condense  itself 
into  a  smaller  body  of  persons  who  become  in  a  manner  its 
representatives,  if  these  great  ends  are  to  be  well  carried 
out.  It  was  the  same  in  Israel.  The  priestly  body  were 
the  representatives  of  the  people.  But  the  existence  of 
the  priestly  class  as  representatives  of  the  people  did  not 
supersede  or  absorb  the  priestly  privileges  of  the  individual, 
any  more  than  the  ministry  of  the  Church  supersedes  the 
ministry  in  prayer  and  exhortation  of  the  father  and  the 
individual. 

The  selection  of  a  priestly  class  to  minister  before  the 
Lord  was  necessary  from  the  nature  of  the  circumstances  in 
which  the  people  were  placed  ;  but,  besides  being  necessary, 
it  was  very  suitable  for  the  purpose  of  impressing  upon 
men's  minds  what  the  true  requirements  of  serving  the 
Lord  were.  Those  who  draw  near  in  service  to  Him  must 
be  like  Him  in  character  and  mind.      This  necessity,  if  it 


QUALITIES    OF    PRIESTHOOD  309 

could  not  be  actually  realised,  could  at  least  l)e  syiiil)olised 
iu  so  graphic  a  way  as  to  teacli  it.  The  imperfect  holiness 
of  the  holy  nation  made  tlie  ])riesth()()d  necessary.  As 
Ewald  says :  "  In  the  sacred  community  of  Jahveli  the 
original  purity  which,  strictly  speaking,  ought  always  to 
be  maintained  tliere,  is  constantly  receiving  various  stains, 
noticed  or  unnoticed,  expiated  or  unatoned  for  .  .  .  and 
the  whole  connnunity,  while  it  felt  tlie  necessity  for 
strictest  purity,  felt  also  that  Jahveh's  sanctuary  dwelt  in 
the  midst  of  the  countless  impurities  of  the  people,  and 
was  never  free  from  their  defilement.  Between  the  sanctity 
of  Jahveh  and  the  perpetually  sin-stained  condition  of  the 
people  there  is  therefore  a  chasm  which  seems  infinite. 
All  the  olTerings  and  gifts  which  the  members  of  the 
connnunity  bring  are  only  like  a  partial  expiation  and 
payment  of  a  debt  which  is  never  entirely  wiped  out.  To 
wipe  out  all  these  stains,  to  bear  the  guilt  of  the  nation, 
and  constantly  to  restore  the  Divine  grace,  is  the  final 
office  of  the  priest.  How  hard  a  one  duly  to  fulfil ! " 
{Antiq.,  Solly's  trans.,  p.    271). 

If  a  sacerdotal  caste  is  to  maintain  for  Israel  the 
relations  with  Jehovah  which  Israel  ought  as  a  whole  to 
maintain,  this  caste  must  possess  iu  a  greater  degree  than 
Israel  the  qualities  of  sanctity  and  purity  essential  to 
fellowship  with  Jehovah.  In  order  to  secure  this,  an 
elaborate  system  of  selection  and  purification  was  carried 
on.  First,  the  Imsis  of  the  priestly  caste  was  made  very 
wide.  The  sanctuary  and  presence  of  Jehovah  was  sur- 
rounded by  a  deep  mass  of  specially  consecrated  persons, 
the  outer  circle  of  wdiich  stood  far  away  from  it,  although 
nearer  it  than  the  ordinary  Israelite.  There  t(K)k  place 
witliin  tlie  class  of  priestly  servants  a  process  of  exclusion 
and  narrowing,  reducing  the  nuud^er  and  elevating  the 
sanctity,  as  tlie  approach  was  made  to  the  presence  of  the 
Lord.  First  a  special  tribe  was  set  apart,  that  of  Levi, 
which  alone  was  priNileged  to  perform  any  act  of  service 
connected  with  the  talieinacle.  Then,  secfnid,  within  this 
wider  circle  was  the  narruwer  one  of  the  priests,  or  sous  of 


310        THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD   TESTAMENT 

Aaron,  who  alone  could  minister  directly  before  God, 
although  they  were  only  admitted  to  the  mediate  nearness 
represented  by  the  holy  place.  And,  finally,  gathering  up 
all  the  virtue  and  sanctity  of  the  class  into  himself,  there 
was  the  high  priest,  who  alone  could  enter  the  holiest  of 
all,  altliough  even  he  could  enter  only  once  a  year. 

The  other  line  of  sanctification  consisted  not  in 
diminishing  the  number  of  the  caste,  but  in  the  symbolical 
acts  of  purification.  Had  it  been  possible  to  secure  really 
greater  godliness  in  the  priest,  it  would  have  been  de- 
manded. But  what  could  not  be  secured  in  reality  was 
expressed  in  symbol.  The  priest  must  be  bodily  free  from 
all  deformity.  Then  he  went  through  numerous  lustrations 
and  purifications  by  many  kinds  of  sacrifices.  Then  to 
exhibit  the  purity  needful  for  his  office  he  was  clothed  in 
linen  clean  and  white. 

Notwithstanding  these  distinctions  between  the  priest- 
hood and  the  people,  the  strictly  representative  character 
of  the  priests,  particularly  of  the  high  priest,  is  the 
important  point  in  the  institution.  In  the  services  of  the 
priesthood  Israel  was  itself  serving  the  Lord.  The  priest- 
hood was  an  idealised  and  purified  Israel  performing  the 
service  before  Jehovah.  In  the  priesthood  Israel  oflered 
its  sacrifices  to  the  Lord,  and  in  the  priesthood  it  carried 
away  the  blessing,  righteousness  from  the  God  of  salvation. 

The  meaning  of  the  sacrificial  system  is  of  importance 
here.  The  great  primary  fact  to  start  from  is  that  of  the 
state  of  covenant  relation  between  God  and  the  worshipping 
people.  Though  in  covenant,  the  people  were  not  thought 
of  as  sinless.  They  might  fall  into  errors,  and  they  were 
compassed  with  infirmities.  For  these  sins  of  infirmity,  or 
ignorance  as  they  were  called,  an  atonement  was  provided 
in  the  sacrificial  system.  This  is  the  meaning  of  the 
system.  It  is  an  institution  provided  of  God  for  sins 
committed  within  the  covenant.  For  some  sins  there  was 
no  atonement ;  sins  done  with  a  liigh  hand  cut  a  man  off 
from  the  covenant  people.  But  for  all  sins  of  error,  w^hich 
included  not  only  sins  done  ignorantly,  but  sins  of  infirmity 


THK    OllirjN    OF    SACRIFICE  311 

tlioiigb  coiiiinitted  coiisciously,  llio  sacrilicial  Rysicui  pro- 
vided an  cx[)iati()ii.  Tlio  cll'oct  of  Umm  was  to  restore 
those  who  oil'ored  them  to  then*  place  in  the  coveuant 
wdiich  they  had  forfeited. 

There  are  two  passages  regarding  the  priest  in  Zeeha- 
riali.  In  one  (vi.  11)  the  priest  is  crowned.  He  does  not 
seem,  however,  to  be  identified  with  the  Messiah,  tlie  man 
the  Branch.  Eather  the  future  is  modelled  upon  the  con- 
dition of  things  then  existing.  There  were  two  heads  to 
the  State,  symbolised  by  the  two  olive  trees,  the  civil 
head  and  the  hierarchical.  These  two  are  not  conceived  as 
united  in  one  person ;  but  the  counsel  of  peace  is  between 
them  both.     Both  sit  on  a  throne,  and  they  act  in  concord. 

In  the  other  passage  (iii.  1-5)  the  high  priest  Joshua 
represents  the  people.  His  filthy  garments  are  removed, 
and  he  is  clothed  with  rich  apparel ;  in  token  that  the 
sins  of  the  people  whom  he  represents  are  taken  away, 
and  they  are  clothed  with  holiness  before  the  Lord. 

2.  Sacrifice. 

We  have  to  notice  here,  however,  two  questions  which 
have  been  raised  regarding  sacrifice.  These  are,  first,  the 
question  as  to  how  it  originated ;  and,  second,  the  (juestion 
as  to  the  primitive  idea  connected  with  it,  or  expressed 
by  it.  There  is  much  difference  of  opinion  in  regard  to 
both  these  questions.  On  the  first  question  there  are 
two  views  which  may  be  noticed  here.  There  is,  first, 
the  view  that  sacrifice  was  ordained  and  suggested  to  men 
directly  by  God.  Tliis  is  the  idea  that  it  is  part  of  a 
primitive  revelation.  To  this  theory  there  are  two  objec- 
tions:  (1)  The  Old  Testament  gives  no  countenance  to  it. 
The  reference  to  sacrifice  in  the  story  of  Cain  and  Abel 
seems  to  regard  their  oiferings  rather  as  spontaneous,  tlie 
instinctive  expression  of  their  feeling  of  dependence  on 
God  and  thankfulness  to  Him.  The  Priests'  Code,  it  is 
true,  regards  sacrifice  in  Israel  as  due  dire('tly  to  God's 
commands  to  Moses.     Hence   this    writing    recognises  no 


312   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

offering  of  sacrifice  prior  to  Moses,  maintaining  perfect 
silence  regarding  such  sacrifices  as  that  of  Noah  after  the 
Flood,  those  of  Abraham  and  the  patriarchs,  and  all  pre- 
ceding the  Exodus.  But  the  author's  silence  can  hardly 
be  treated  as  any  evidence  of  his  view  of  the  origin  of 
sacrifice  in  general,  but  only  of  the  sacrifices  operating 
in  Israel.  This  work  is  a  history  of  Israel's  sacred  institu- 
tions— institutions  which,  at  the  time  when  the  book  was 
written,  had  attained  their  full  development,  and  were  in 
that  sense  God's  final  revelation  to  His  people  as  to  how 
He  desired  to  be  served.  And  (2)  the  universal  prevalence 
of  sacrifice  among  the  heathen  nations  seems  to  imply 
that  sacrifice  was  in  some  way  a  natural  expression  of 
man's  sense  of  his  relation  to  God.  The  hypothesis  of  a 
primitive  revelation,  the  remains  of  which  lingered  among 
all  the  peoples  of  the  world,  and  which  expressed  itself 
through  sacrifice,  is  precarious.  It  certainly  cannot  be 
proved ;  and  to  explain  sacrifice  by  it  must  leave  the 
origin  of  that  institution  involved  in  the  same  precarious 
and  hypothetical  condition. 

But  this  leads  to  the  other  question,  What  was  the 
primitive  idea  underlying  sacrifice  ?  The  answers  have 
mainly  run  on  two  Hues,  the  ethical,  and  what  might  be 
called  the  physical.  It  has  been  supposed  that  man's 
sense  of  evil,  of  his  own  inadequate  service  to  God,  and  of 
God's  holiness,  made  him  feel  that  reparation  was  due  to 
God,  and  that  he  deserved  death.  Hence,  to  express  this 
feeling,  he  brought  living  creatures  to  God  as  his  own  sub- 
stitutes, inflicting  on  them  the  penalty  of  death  deserved 
by  himself.  Sacrifice  was  thus  from  the  first  piacular  and 
propitiatory.  The  objection  to  this  idea  is,  that  it  seems  to 
assume  ideas  present  in  the  mind  of  primitive  man  as  the 
subject  of  his  own  sin,  and  of  death  as  the  deserved 
penalty  of  it,  which  rather  belong  to  an  advanced  period 
of  ethical  reflection.  And  the  same  objection  applies, 
though  in  less  degree,  to  a  variety  of  the  above  view, 
which  regards  sacrifice  as  the  expression  of  homage 
and  dependence ;  in  other  words,  a  sort  of  acted  prayer. 


THE    ESSENTIAL    IDEA    OF    SACRIFICE  31?) 

Act'ion  ratlu'r  than  words,  it  is  argued,  is  what  is  to  be 
expected  of  piiiuitivo  hi'c ;  and  this  act  was  sacrifice.  So, 
e.g.,  F.  D.  Maurice.  See  his  Theological  Essays  and  his 
Doctrine  of  Sacrifice  deduced  from  the  Scriptures. 

This  view  differs  not  very  greatly  from  another  one,  that 
sacrifice  or  offering  was  of  the  nature  of  a  gift  to  please 
the  deity,  and  so  obtain  from  him  what  was  desired,  whether 
it  was  the  pacification  of  his  anger  and  the  cessation  of 
calamities,  or  success  in  the  struggle  with  enemies,  or,  in  a 
higher  stage  of  thought,  the  joy  of  fellowship  with  him, 
and  the  sense  of  being  pleasing  in  his  sight. 

These  views  all  move  more  or  less  on  ethical  lines. 

Quite  a  different  view  has  been  advocated  by  Professors 
Eobertson  Smith  and  Wellhausen.^  In  the  view  of  these 
scholars  the  essential  idea  of  sacrifice  is  to  be  observed  in 
the  sacrificial  meal — the  communion  of  the  deity  and 
man  in  a  common  sacramental  food.  The  god  and  the  tribe 
were  one ;  or,  if  the  god  was  estranged,  it  was  only  a  tem- 
porary estrangement.  The  idea  that  a  common  partaking 
of  food  united  in  a  bond  of  friendship  or  covenant  those 
who  so  partook,  was  a  usual  one.  The  idea  was  trans- 
ferred to  the  sphere  of  Divine  and  human  relations.  The 
common  sacrificial  meal,  as  it  cemented  the  union  of  men 
with  men,  cemented  also  the  union  of  the  deity  and  men ; 
or  if  the  union  liad  been  partially  or  temporarily  strained, 
— it  could  never  be  more,  for  the  god  was  one  with  the 
tribe, — it  restored  it.  The  participants  on  the  human  side, 
by  eating  food  in  common,  confirmed  their  union  one  with 
another ;  and  by  giving  the  god  part  of  the  sacrifice,  e.g. 
smearing  the  blood  on  stones  which  he  inhabited,  and 
which  more  lately  developed  into  an  altar,  they  allowed 
him  also  to  participate,  and  so  cemeuted  his  union  with 
them.  He  was  thus  one  with  them,  their  help  and  stay 
in  all  the  vicissitudes  of  their  life.  As  thought  advanced, 
this  action  carried  moral  meaning  with  it ;  although 
originally   tlie   idea   was   more    that   of  a   physical  union, 

1  See  the  Skizzen  unci  Vorarheiten  of  the  latter,  aud  The  Religion  of  the 
Semites  of  the  former. — Ed. 


314       THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

the   common   material   food   binding   all    wlio    partook   of 
it  into  one   pliysical  body. 

A  fragment  of  this  primitive  theory  is  supposed  still  to 
be  seen  in  the  Hebrew  sacrificial  meal  after  offering  to  the 
God.  It  is  doubtful  if  tliis  construction  of  tl^fo  meaning  of 
the  sacrificial  meal  anywhere  appears  in  the  Old  Testament ; 
but  it  is  common  for  a  usage  to  maintain  itself  long  after 
the  original  idea  which  it  expressed  has  ceased  to  be  con- 
nected with  it. 

Those  who  maintain  this  theory  have  considerable  diffi- 
culty in  explaining  how  this  primitive  idea  gradually 
ramified  into  the  conceptions  connected  with  sacrifice  which 
we  find  prevailing  from  the  beginning  of  the  historical 
period  among  the  Hebrews.  If  sacrifice  was  a  common 
sacramental  meal  between  men  and  the  god,  how  did  such  a 
sacrifice  as  the  ^'yS  or  npiy  arise, — the  whole  burnt-offering, 
which  was  wholly  given  to  the  deity,  and  of  which  men 
did  not  partake  at  all  ? 

The  explanation  is  connected  with  the  advance  in  social 
conditions,  which  suggested  new  ideas.  In  the  earliest 
times,  it  was  the  tribe  that  had  existence  and  owned 
property,  it  and  the  god  in  common.  All  sacrifices  were 
tribal,  cementing  the  union  of  the  tribe  and  the  rid.  The 
individual  had  no  property,  no  separate  being  or  place. 
This  was  the  condition  in  a  nomad  state.  But  when  the 
people  passed  into  an  agricultural  life  he  had  something 
really  his  own,  his  land,  his  cattle.  If  he  owed  them  to 
the  god,  still  they  were  his  in  the  sense  that  they  did  not 
belong  to  the  tribe  or  the  people.  He  was,  so  to  speak, 
in  personal  relation  to  the  deity.  If  the  old  idea  of  a 
sacramental  meal  still  prevailed,  he  could  present  his  offer- 
ing for  himself.  But  naturally  the  idea  would  arise  in  his 
mind  that  he  could  now  present  a  gift  to  his  god, — it  might 
be  out  of  thankfulness  and  in  return  for  nmch  that  he  had 
received,  or  it  might  be  to  placate  the  god's  anger  if  he 
seemed  estranged,  or  it  might  be  for  other  reason.  Sacrifice 
began  to  express  the  idea  of  a  gift  to  God  with  the  view 
of  pleasing  Him. 


DISTINCTIONS   OF   SINS  315 

Whatever  tlic  liiytorical  evolution  of  tlie  idc;!  of  Hacritice, 
or  whatever  its  primary  idea,,  it  seems  certain  that  this  idea 
of  a  gift  or  otl'eriiig  to  God  is  the  prevailing  idea  in  the 
Hehrew  religion  from  the  earliest.  The  sacrifices  of  Cain 
and  Ahel  are  called  a  ^^^^,  a  j^reseiit. 

If  there  is  dissidence  and  diversity  of  opinion  l)etween 
prophets  and  people,  it  is  not  on  the  general  idea  that  an 
offering  or  service  is  pleasing  to  the  Deity,  hut  on  what 
is  the  offering  that  is  pleasing, — these  material  offerings 
of  flesh,  or  the  service  of  the  mind  in  obedience  and 
righteousness. 

3.   Atonement  and  Forgiveness 

We  may  notice  here  a  few  points,  particularly  some 
distinctions,  which  it  is  useful  to  keep  in  mind,  and  which 
are  helpful  to  tlie  understanding  of  the  Old  Testament  view 
on  these  subjects.  (1)  A  distinction  is  drawn  in  the  Old 
Testament,  as  we  have  seen,  between  sins  of  ignorance  or 
inadvertence  and  sins  done  with  a  high  hand  or  of  purpose. 
The  former  are  called  chiefly  nj3^*,  the  latter  are  said  to  be 
done  HD"!  nj3.  The  former  class  embraced  more  than  mere 
involuntary  or  inadvertent  sins.  The  class  comprehended 
all  sins  done  not  in  a  spirit  of  rebellion  against  the  law 
or  ordinance  of  Jehovah — sins  committed  through  human 
imperfection,  or  human  ignorance,  or  human  passion ;  sins 
done  when  the  mind  was  directed  to  some  end  connected 
with  human  weakness  or  selfishness,  but  not  formally 
oyjposed  to  the  authority  of  the  Lawgiver.  The  distinction 
was  thus  primarily  a  distinction  in  regard  to  the  state  of 
mind  of  the  transgressor.  In  point  of  fact,  however,  it 
was  convenient  to  specify  in  general  the  offences  that 
belonged  to  the  class  of  sins  done  with  a  high  hand,  and 
upon  the  whole  they  were  the  sins  forbidden  by  the  moral 
law.  No  doubt,  in  certain  circumstances  even  these  sins, 
if  committed  involuntarily,  were  treated  as  sins  of  error, 
and  the  penalty  due  to  them  was  averted  by  certain  extra- 
ordinary arrangements ;  as  for  example,  when  a  murder  was 


316   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

committed  by  misadventure,  the  manslayer  was  allowed 
to  liee  to  a  city  of  refuge.  Otherwise  tlie  consequence  of 
his  deed  would  overtake  him  in  tlie  ordinary  penalty 
attached  to  such  an  oflence,  which  was  death. 

(2)  Corresponding  to  this  distinction  among  offences 
was  another.  Only  sins  of  ignorance,  as  we  have  said, 
were  capable  of  being  atoned  for  by  sacrifice.  The  class 
of  offences  said  to  be  done  with  a  high  hand  were  capital, 
and  followed  by  excision  from  the  community.  The  sins 
of  error  or  ignorance  could  be  removed  by  sacrifice  and 
offering.  In  other  words,  the  Old  Testament  sacrificial 
system  was  a  system  of  atonement  only  for  the  so-called 
sins  of  inadvertency. 

(3)  This  distinction  may  be  put  in  other  terms — in 
terms  of  the  covenant.  The  sins  done  with  a  high  hand 
threw  those  committing  them  outside  the  covenant  re- 
lation. They  were  an  infraction  of  the  fundamental  con- 
ditions of  the  covenant  union.  Such  a  sin  as  idolatry, 
homage  to  another  deity  than  Jehovah,  infringed  the  first 
principle  of  the  covenant  relation,  the  basis  of  which  was 
that  Jehovah  was  God  of  Israel.  The  sinner  who  had 
committed  such  an  offence  had  withdrawn  himself  from 
the  sphere  within  which  Jehovah  was  gracious ;  there 
stood  nothing  between  him  and  the  anger  of  Jehovah  for 
his  sins,  and  especially  for  this  the  greatest  possible  sin. 
The  sins  of  ignorance,  on  the  other  hand,  were  sins  of 
human  frailty,  offences  not  amounting  to  an  infraction  of 
the  very  conditions  of  the  covenant ;  but  though  disturbing 
to  the  relations  between  a  God  of  holiness  and  His  people, 
offences  that  were  not  immediately  destructive  of  these 
relations,  and  permitting  the  relations  to  continue,  pro- 
vided they  were  removed  by  the  means  appointed  by 
Jehovah  for  that  purpose,  and  not  voluntarily  persevered 
in  or  neglected.  And  the  sacrificial  or  Levitical  ritual 
system  was  the  means  appointed  for  obviating  the  con- 
sequences of  these  inevitable  offences. 

The  sacrifices  were  thus  offered  to  a  God  already  in 
relations  of  grace  with  His  people.     They  were  not  offered 


UNCLE ANNESS    AND    ITS    REMOVAL  317 

in  order  to  attain  His  grace,  but  to  retain  it — or  to  prcvcMit 
the  coininunion  existing  l)otween  Iliiii  and  Jlis  ]>eu])le  heing 
disturbed  or  broken  by  the  still  inevitalde  imperfections  of 
His  people,  whether  as  individuals  or  as  a  wliole.  It  is 
argued  by  some  tliat  such  a  conception  as  this  of  a  pe()])le 
in  communion  with  their  God,  a  communion  oidy  liable  to 
be  disturbed  now  by  such  mere  offences  of  frailty,  points  to 
a  period  in  the  people's  history  posterior  to  the  prophetic 
age,  when  idolatry  and  the  gross  oilences  assailed  by  the 
prophets  no  longer  existed.  It  must  be  admitted  at  once 
that  at  no  period  of  the  people's  history  prior  to  the 
return  from  exile  did  the  condition  of  the  people  and  this 
idea  embodied  in  the  sacrificial  system  correspond  in  fact. 
But  that  would  not  at  once  entitle  us  to  infer  that  tlie 
ideal  itself  was  not  of  much  greater  antiquity.  At  all 
events  the  Old  Testament  sacrificial  system  belonged  to 
the  worship  of  the  people  of  God,  conceived  as  truly  His 
people,  believing  in  Him  and  in  fellowsliip  with  Him. 
And  it  was  a  means  of  maintaining  this  fellowship,  of 
equating  and  removing  the  disturbances  which  human 
frailties  occasioned  to  this  comnumion.  Hence  the  pre- 
vailing conception  of  Jehovah  in  all  the  ordinances  of  the 
system  is  that  of  holiness — a  purity  as  of  liglit  whicli 
human  imperfections  disturb,  and  which  when  disturbed 
reacts  and  becomes  a  fire  that  consumes. 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  this  idea  of  the  Divine 
holiness  in  the  law  draws  up  into  it  not  merely  moral 
holiness,  that  is,  freedom  from  and  reaction  against  all 
moral  evil,  but  also  a  considerable  aesthetic  element.  The 
Divine  holiness  re-acts  against  much  that  is  on  man's 
side  merely  an  uncleanness,  and  requires  its  removal 
by  washings,  before  the  fellowship  can  be  maintained  or 
renewed.  A  deeper  study  of  those  points,  such  as  tlie 
rmcleanness  arising  from  touc^hing  the  dead,  tlie  woman's 
uncleanness  from  cliildbirth,  and  much  more,  miglit  reveal 
to  us  some  moral  conception  undeilying  the  ordinance. 
If  the  ritual  system  be  late,  tins  supi)osition  would  become 
even    more   probable ;    if    it   were    very   early,   we    might 


318   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

])eilia})S  more  readily  ac(iiuesce  in  the  idea  that  tlie  moral 
and  tlie  physical  were  not  yet  strictly  distinguished. 
There  were  thus  in  Israel  two  streams  of  conception  re- 
garding God,  running  side  by  side.  In  the  one — as  seen 
in  the  historical  and  prophetic  literature — Jehovah  is  a 
King,  a  righteous  Euler  and  Judge,  who  punishes  sin  judi- 
cially, or  forgives  it  freely  of  His  mercy,  requiring  only 
repentance.  In  the  other,  Jehovah  is  a  holy  person, 
dwelling  in  a  house  among  His  people,  who  approach  to 
worship  Him  ;  a  being,  or  a  nature,  sensitive  in  His  holiness 
.to  all  uncleanness  in  that  which  is  near  Him,  and  requir- 
ing its  removal  by  lustrations  and  atonement. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  other  class  of  sins  referred  to 
threw  the  offender  outside  the  sphere  within  which  God 
was  continuously  gracious.  There  was  no  sacrifice  for 
such  sins.  The  offender  was  left  face  to  face  with  the 
anger  of  God.  Here  the  offender  has  to  reckon  not  so 
much  with  the  Divine  holiness,  as  with  the  Divine  right- 
eousness, and  wrath  against  sin.  At  all  events  he  has  no 
refuge  to  flee  to  except  God  Himself.  And  these  cases 
are  of  extreme  interest  because  they  polarise,  so  to  speak, 
the  Divine  nature  itself — the  two  poles  being  His  wrath 
against  sin  and  His  mercy.  And  the  latter  appears  the 
more  powerful  of  the  two,  and  ultimately  prevails,  although 
not  usually  at  once,  nor  without  some  terrible  illustration 
of  God's  wrath  against  evil.  It  is,  of  course,  with  this 
class  of  sins  that  the  prophets  deal  almost  exclusively — 
sins  throwing  the  nation  outside  the  covenant  limits.  And 
they  express  the  consciousness  of  the  true  nature  of  these 
sins  and  their  inevitable  consequences.  And  some  may 
think  that  just  here  lies  the  explanation  of  their  assaults 
upon  the  sacrificial  system.  The  people  thought  that 
redoubled  assiduity  in  ritual  and  increase  in  the  splendour 
of  their  gifts  would  atone  for  their  offences,  however  great. 
But  their  idea  was  a  misconception  of  the  very  principle 
of  the  ritual  system,  which  had  respect  only  to  those  true 
to  the  fundamental  conditions  of  the  covenant  relations 
which  they  had  transgressed.     Of  course,  many  other  false 


ATONEMENT    AND    ITS    MEANS  319 

conceptions  were  mingled  together  in  their  minds,  dne 
partly  to  the  fact  that  the  sacrifices  were  of  the  nature  of 
a  gift  to  Jehovah. 

(4)  But  now  this  distinction  hetween  the  two  classes 
of  sins  being  had  in  mind,  and  the  distinction  between 
sins  and  persons  for  whom  sacrifice  is  available  and  those 
for  whom  it  is  not  being  remembered,  tlie  next  point  is 
that  of  atonement,  and  the  means  by  whicli  it  may  Ije 
effected.  The  word  which  has  been  translated  *  atone '  is, 
in  Hebrew,  "IS3.  Now,  in  point  of  fact,  this  term  is  used 
both  of  sins  done  within  the  covenant  and  sins  which 
threw  the  offender  outside  the  covenant.  The  former  sins 
were  atoned  by  the  sacrifices,  more  specifically  by  the  blood 
of  the  sacrifices  ;  the  latter  could  not  be  atoned  by  this 
means — at  least,  in  general.  Now,  it  is  evident  that  in 
order  to  obtain  a  general  view  of  the  Old  Testament 
teaching  on  atonement,  both  classes  of  sins  and  their 
treatment  must  be  kept  before  us. 

The  sacrifices  atoned  for  the  sins  of  those  who  were 
truly  Jehovah's  people ;  tliey  were  ordinances  of  God 
already  in  fellowship  with  men,  to  whom  He  was  gracious, 
in  fact.  They  had  not  respect  at  all  to  Jehovah's  actual 
wrath — they  had  respect  only  to  His  holy  nature,  and  the 
danger  that  it  might  react  against  uncleanness  or  sin  in 
those  who  approached  Him  as  His  people.  Atonement  of 
offences  in  this  relation  could  hardly  furnish  us  with  a 
general  conception  of  what  atonement  is.  No  doul)t,  the 
principle  may  be  the  same  in  all  cases.  But  at  all  events 
the  other  class  of  cases  will  be  more  instructive  in  this  at 
least,  that  they  will  show  us  the  Divine  mind  in  a  greater 
variety  of  conditions.  Even  any  inferences  we  might 
draw,  however,  from  atonement  of  sins  that  in  theory  and 
principle  were  outside  the  covenant,  may  scarcely  be  held 
available  to  form  a  general  and  abstract  idea  of  atonement 
applicable  universally ;  because  even  when  Jehovah  was 
dealing  with  the  sinners  who  had  Ijroken  His  covenant — 
they  were  the  sinners  of  His  peo])lo,  He  lemembered  in 
them  the  kindness  of  tlieir  youtli  (Jcr.  ii.  2) — they  were 


320   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

the  seed  of  Abraham  His  friend,  wlioiii  He  ]iad  chosen  aud 
not  cast  away  (Isa.  xli.  8).  And  liow  far  the  principles 
observed  even  in  His  treatment  of  the  covenant-breakers 
of  Israel  miglit  be  applied  to  the  sinners  of  mankind 
generally,  might  need  consideration. 

There  are  two  classes  of  passages  wliich  have  to  be 
considered.  They  express  dili'erent  shades  of  conception 
regarding  the  Divine  Being.  The  one  class  bears  upon 
His  holiness,  the  other  on  His  righteousness. 

In  the  class  having  reference  to  worship,  the  Divine 
nature  is  considered  more  as  something  which  instinctively 
reacts  against  human  unholiness.  The  worshippers  coming 
into  His  courts  are  in  His  personal  presence, — His  nature 
and  theirs  come  into  direct  union, — and  hence  the  danger 
to  a  natuie  impure.  In  the  other  class  of  cases  the  sinner 
is  not  in  Jehovah's  presence.  Jehovah  is  rather  the  ruler, 
and  His  action  is  strictly  moral.  His  will  and  moral  right- 
eousness, rather  than  His  physical,  nature,  come  into  pro- 
minence. It  may  be  best  to  take  this  class  of  passages 
first. 

The  word  "1S2,  rendered  atone,  means  properly  to  cover. 
Hence  its  synonym  nD3  is  not  unfrequently  employed 
instead  of  it,  as  in  Ps.  xxxii. :  "  Blessed  is  he  whose  trans- 
gression is  covered.''  Naturally  a  covering  may  be  pro- 
tective, or  it  may  have  the  effect  of  making  the  thing 
covered  inoperative ;  it  may  invalidate  its  natural  effect, 
or  annul  it.  Hence  Isaiah  says  (xxviii.  18):  "Your 
covenant  with  death  shall  be  disannulled,  "'S^i."  Now  it  is 
with  some  such  general  sense  that  the  word  is  used  of 
sin ;  it  is  covered  so  that  its  operation  is  hindered,  its 
effects  are  invalidated.  In  what  sense  this  is  done  will 
best  appear  if  one  or  two  points  be  stated  in  order. 

{a)  In  these  cases  of  extra-ritual  atonement  the  object 
of  atonement  is  the  sin,  or  offence,  of  whatever  kind  it  be, 
e.g.  Ps.  Ixv.  3 :  "  Iiuquities  prevail  against  us :  as  for  our 
transgressions.  Thou  shalt  atone  them,  D"iS3ri/'  E.V.  "  purge 
them  away."  Ps.  Ixxviii.  38:  "But  He,  being  full  of  com- 
passion, atoned  iniquity,"  "is?^.,  E.V.  "forgave."      Isa.  vi.  7: 


THE   COVERING    OF   SIN  321 

"  Thiiio  iiii(iiiilics  »hall  (lci)art,  and  thy  sin  yliall  be  atonod, 
iDDn."  Jor.  xviii.  23:  "  Thou,  Lord,  kuowest  all  then*  counsel 
agamst  nie  to  slay  nie :  atone  not  Thou  their  inicpiity, 
i33n"7N."  Instead  of  1D3,  the  verb  of  similar  sense,  nD3  to 
cover,  \^  sometimes  used;  l\s.  Ixxxv.  o:  "Thou  hast  taken 
away  the  ini(|uity  of  Thy  people :  Thou  hast  covered  all 
tlieir  sin,'*'  ^''?3.  The  innnediate  effect  of  the  covering  is 
upon  the  sin.  It  is  of  importance  to  notice  that  it  is  never 
primarily  an  effect  produced  upon  Jehovah  Himself,  nor 
upon  His  face,  nor  upon  His  wrath.  The  atonement  may 
take  place  before  the  Lord,  or  in  His  presence  (Lev.  vi.  7), 
but  the  Lord  Himself  is  never  the  object.  His  face  or 
eyes  are  not  covered  so  that  He  does  not  see  the  sin  or 
offence  or  unholiness  of  the  sinner ;  the  sin  is  covered  and 
withdrawn  from  His  sight.  Similar  ideas  are  expressed  by 
the  phrase,  "  I  am  He  that  blotteth  out  thy  transgression  like 
a  cloud"  (Isa.  xliv.  22);  and  by  such  figures  as  casting  the 
people's  sins  into  the  depth  of  the  sea  (Mic.  vii.  19),  cast- 
ing them  behind  His  back  (Isa.  xxxviii.  17).  It  might 
seem  that  the  difference  is  not  great  between  covering  a 
sin  so  that  God's  eyes  do  not  see  it,  and  inducing  Him  to 
turn  away  His  eyes  from  it ;  and  the  Psalmist  (Ps.  li.  9) 
actually  prays  :  "  Hide  Thy  face  from  my  sin."  Still  there 
must  be  something  in  the  usage,  and  it  no  doubt  suggests 
these  general  ideas:  (1)  that  the  sin  itself  must  in  some 
way  be  done  away,  and  made  invalid ;  (2)  that  without 
this  no  gifts  can  operate  on  the  Divine  anger — He  is  not 
induced  by  influences  from  without,  but  moved  from  within 
Himself. 

(&)  A  second  point  hi  this  class  of  offences  is  that  the 
subject  who  atones  is  usually  God  Himself — He  covers  the 
sin.  Ps.  Ixv.  3  :  "As  for  our  transgressions,  Thou  dost 
atone  (or,  cover)  them."  In  general  this  is  the  representa- 
tion, though  occasionally  another  subject  intervenes,  as 
Moses  the  mediator  of  the  covenant,  and  others  who  re- 
present the  people.  The  meaning  of  atoning  sin,  tlien, 
may,  in  general,  l)e  said  to  1)0  this,  it  is  covering  it  so  tliat 
the   eyes   of  Jehovah  do  not    behold    it,  and    His    anger 

21 


322   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

against  it  is  quenched ;  and  none  but  Himself  can  effect 
this. 

(c)  The  means  whereby  sin  is  covered  in  these  extra- 
ritual  cases  are  various.  The  fact  that  He  Himself  is 
represented  as  the  subject  who  performs  the  covering  or 
atonement,  shows  how  profoundly  the  feeling  had  taken 
possession  of  the  people's  mind  that  in  wliatever  way  sin 
was  to  be  invalidated,  and  its  effects  neutralised,  ultimately 
its  removal  must  be  due  to  God ;  that  He  was  not  moved 
by  something  or  anything  outside  of  Him,  but  that  the 
movement  came  from  within  Himself,  whatever  the  im- 
mediate means  were  of  which  He  made  use.  Hence  in  the 
widest  sense.  His  own  sense  of  Himself,  considerations  taken 
from  His  whole  being,  and  His  relations  to  men,  may  inter- 
vene between  men's  sin  and  His  anger ;  Ps.  Ixxix.  9 :  "  Help 
us,  0  God  of  our  salvation,  for  the  glory  of  Thy  name  .  .  . 
cover  our  sins,  for  Thy  name's  sake."  "  Who  is  a  God  like 
unto  Thee,  pardoning  iniquity  ? "  (Mic.  vii.  1 8) ;  or  less  widely, 
some  one  prevailing  attribute,  such  as  His  compassion ;  Ps. 
Ixxviii.  38:  "  But  He,  being  full  of  compassion,  covered 
their  iniquity."  As  has  been  said,  the  effect  of  sin  was, 
so  to  speak,  to  polarise  the  Divine  nature,  and  to  draw 
out  powerfully  the  consuming  anger ;  yet  the  prevail- 
ing tone  of  His  nature  might  come  between  and  cover 
the  iniquity,  so  that  His  anger  was  turned  away.  There  is, 
perhaps,  no  passage  that  illustrates  the  general  idea  that 
atoning  or  covering  of  sin  must  proceed  from  the  Lord 
Himself,  whatever  means  He  employs,  better  than  the 
passage  in  Isa.  vi.  The  ideas  of  the  passage  have  un- 
doubtedly a  certain  resemblance  to  the  Pentateuchal 
passages,  though  the  means  of  atonement  are  very  general. 
The  prophet's  uncleanness  was  removed  by  a  messenger 
sent  from  the  presence  of  the  Lord ;  and,  second,  by  a  coal 
taken  from  His  altar,  where  He  is  Himself  most  present. 
And  the  coal  had  in  it  a  Divine  power ;  both  the  agent 
and  the  means  came  directly  from  the  Lord. 

I  am  afraid  these  remarks  leave  the  question  somewhat 
indefinite ;  but  probably  it  is  left  somewhat  indefinite  in 


THE    DIVINE    WRATH    AND    ITS    REMOVAL         323 

the  Old  Testament,  tlie  (lefiiiitc  points  being  only  these : 
tliat  it  is  the  sin  that  is  covered  ;  that  '  covering '  it  means 
withdrawing  its  power  to  provoke  the  anger  of  God ;  that 
usually  it  is  God  Himself  who  covers  it ;  that  the  motives 
are  drawn  from  His  own  nature,  and  tlie  initiative  is  His ; 
and  that  the  means,  where  mentioned  at  all,  are  appointed  by 
Him,  though  the  motives  and  the  means  are  usually  identical. 
There  are  two  or  three  historical  passages  of  considerable 
interest ;  for  example,  the  instance  of  the  golden  calf  made 
by  Aaron  (Ex.  xxxii.),  and  the  instance  of  the  whoredom 
of  the  people  in  the  plains  of  Moab  in  connection  with 
Baal  Peer  (Num.  xxv.).  In  these  instances  there  are 
several  things:  (1)  a  breach  of  the  covenant;  (2)  an  out- 
break of  Divine  wrath  in  the  form  of  a  plague ;  and  (3) 
the  intervention  of  a  human  agent :  in  the  one  case  Moses, 
who  interceded  with  Jehovah ;  and  in  the  other  Phinehas, 
who  executed  vengeance  upon  the  chief  transgressors.  In 
both  cases  the  covering  of  the  sin  of  the  people  followed. 
Now  the  two  points  of  interest  are:  (1)  that  the  Divine 
anger  to  a  certain  extent  took  effect  in  the  plague  and 
slaughter.  It  was  manifested  and  illustrated  so  far  as  in 
some  degree  to  satisfy  it.  And  (2)  a  human  agent  inter- 
vened to  effect  the  covering  of  the  sin.  On  what  ground 
was  the  action  of  Moses  or  Phinehas  a  covering  of  the 
people's  sin  ?  It  was,  perhaps,  on  the  principle  of  solidarity. 
The  anger  of  Jehovah  was  kindled  against  the  whole  people, 
and  threatened  to  consume  them  utterly.  But  these  men 
were  of  the  people.  Moses  was  a  mediator  and  representa- 
tive of  the  people,  and  not  in  any  way  involved  in  their 
sin ;  and  he  was  a  prince  and  leader,  and  showed  his  zeal 
for  the  Lord.  In  point  of  fact,  though  many  had  broken 
the  covenant,  it  had  not  been  broken  by  the  people  as  a 
whole.  And  God  had  respect  to  His  covenant,  and  covered 
the  offence  of  the  sinners.  It  is  this  principle  of  solidarity, 
perhaps,  that  explains  the  intercession  of  the  prophets. 
Amos  twice  interceded  and  was  heard.  But  both  Jeremiali 
and  Ezekiel  are  warned  that  their  intercessions  will  not  be 
listened  to. 


324   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

But  the  other  point  is  of  chief  interest  in  regard  to  the 
prophet  Isaiah.  Of  course,  to  punish  for  sin  and  to  cover 
sin  are  ideas  opposed  to  one  another.  If  the  people  bear 
their  sin  in  Divine  chastisement,  there  is  no  covering  of  it. 
But  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  penalty  of  breach  of  the 
covenant  is  not  mere  chastisement,  but  destruction.  Now 
the  question  suggests  itself,  whether  chastisement  to  a  less 
degree  than  destruction  might  not  be  held  a  covering  of 
sin  in  God's  mercy.  Strictly,  it  was  not  a  covering,  but 
might  it  not  be  considered  so  ?  In  this  case  there  would 
be  a  union  of  means  acting  as  '  covering ' :  first,  the  satis- 
faction so  far  of  the  punitive  wrath,  and,  second,  the  mercy 
of  God  intervening  to  regard  it  as  enough — as  it  is  said  in 
Isa.  xl.  2  :  "  She  has  received  of  the  Lord's  hand  double 
for  all  her  sins." 


4.  Atonement  hy  Priest  and  High  Priest 

Anticipating  in  some  measure  what  has  to  b«  noticed 
further  on,  we  may  say  here  that  the  points  in  connection 
with  atonement  in  the  sacrifices  that  entered  into  worship 
are  not  numerous,  although  they  are  of  importance.  They 
are  two. 

(1)  The  subject  who  atones  in  this  case  is  no  more  God 
Himself,  but  the  priest,  or,  when  the  atonement  is  made 
for  the  whole  people,  the  high  priest.  This  is  not,  perhaps, 
a  great  change,  as  the  priest  is  appointed  of  God.  But  the 
procedure  of  atoning  is  now  something  ordinary,  and  not 
left  to  the  mercy  of  God.  In  particular  instances  He  has 
appointed  standing  ordinances  and  persons  for  accomplish- 
ing it.  It  is  still  an  ordinance,  proceeding  in  all  its  parts 
from  Him ;  but  it  is  now  a  standing  ordinance. 

(2)  The  object  of  atonement  is  still  the  sins  of  the 
olfender,  whether  individual  or  people.  In  this  case,  how- 
ever, the  language  differs  considerably  from  that  previously 
used.  It  is  more  commonly  not  the  sins  of  the  offenders, 
but  the  'persons  or  souls  or  lives  of  the  offenders  that  are 
covered.     The  change  is  due  to  the  circumstances.     The 


THE    EFFICACY    OF    ATONEMENT  325 

persons  in  question  now  are  not  strictly  sinners  afar  from 
God.  They  are  His  worshippers  entering  into  His  courts ; 
and  the  danger  is  of  His  nature  reacting  against  them  and 
consuming  them,  as  in  Isa,  vi.  Of  course  the  danger  in 
the  other  class  of  cases  was  to  the  person  of  the  sinner 
ultimately ;  but  in  these  cases  the  sinner  was  not  a 
worshipper  in  Jehovah's  presence,  and  it  was  rather  God's 
judicial  sentence  that  he  had  to  fear.  If  anything  were 
needed  to  sliow  that  the  danger  feared  is,  so  to  speak,  from 
the  nature  of  God  and  His  presence,  it  is  the  fact  that  not 
only  the  persons  drawing  near  to  Him  needed  to  be  atoned 
or  covered  by  blood,  but  the  same  necessity  existed  for  the 
tabernacle,  or  house  itself,  and  all  its  furniture.  These 
contracted  uncleanness,  perhaps,  from  the  presence  in  them 
of  sinful  men,  and  they  had  to  be  covered  by  sacrificial 
blood.  This  is  a  very  profound  idea  of  the  Divine  holi- 
ness ;  and  when  we  extend  it  from  the  mere  idea  of 
worship  to  His  universal  presence,  it  becomes  very 
suggestive. 

(3)  The  means  of  atonement  in  this  case  are  always  the 
blood  of  the  sacrifice.  Sometimes  the  efficacy  appears  to 
be  ascribed  to  the  whole  sacrificial  arrangement,  but  never 
unless  the  arrangement  contained  a  bleeding  sacrifice. 
The  chief  atoning  sacrifices  are  the  sin-offering,  the  guilt- 
offering,  and  the  whole  burnt-offering. 

The  passage  in  Lev.  xvii.  1 1  gives  the  fullest  account  of 
the  principle  of  atonement.  "  The  life  of  the  fiesh  is  in  the 
blood :  and  I  have  given  it  to  you  upon  the  altar  to  make 
an  atonement  for  your  souls :  for  the  blood  atoneth  in 
virtue  of  the  life."  This  law  prohibits  the  eating  of  blood, 
and  states  the  reason.  The  life  is  in  the  blood,  and  the 
blood  is  given  to  make  atonement ;  and  this  atonement  the 
blood  effects  in  virtue  of  the  life  which  it  contains.  Atone- 
ment is  here  represented  as  made  not  for  sins,  but  for  souls 
or  persons.  The  blood  makes  this  atonement,  covers  the 
persons :  it  does  so  because  it  contains  the  life.  But  no 
explanation  is  given  of  the  prhiciple  how  the  blood  with 
the  life  in  it  covers  the  persons,  i.e.  atones.     The  passage 


326   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

is  silent  on  the  principle  ;  but  the  ordinance  is  an  ordinance 
of  God :  "I  have  given  it  to  you  upon  the  altar." 

Thus  the  Old  Testament  doctrine  of  atonement  runs  on 
two  lines,  which  perhaps,  in  the  Old  Testament,  do  not 
meet  or  coincide. 

The  Christian  doctrine,  as  expressed  by  St.  Paul,  has 
united  the  two,  taking  from  the  first  that  which  creates 
the  necessity  of  atonement,  the  moral  righteousness  of  God ; 
and  from  the  second  the  means  of  atonement,  the  blood  of 
sacrifice,  and  making  the  one  answer  the  other.  The 
apostle,  of  course,  lays  down  universal  principles  applicable 
to  all  men,  Jews  and  Gentiles.  He  regards  all  sins  as 
inferring  the  wrath  of  God.  All  sins,  in  his  view,  belong 
to  the  category  of  sins  done  with  a  high  hand ;  at  least  all 
men  are  guilty  of  such  sins.  Knowing  that  such  things 
are  worthy  of  death,  they  not  only  do  them,  but  have 
pleasure  in  those  that  do  them.  All  men  are  guilty  of 
sinning  wittingly.  Thus  the  relation  of  God  to  all  men  is 
to  St.  Paul  the  same  as  His  relation  was  to  sinners  in  Israel 
with  a  high  hand.  He  is  Kuler  and  Judge ;  His  righteous- 
ness and  the  sin  come  into  connection.  Of  course,  the 
apostle  refers  forgiveness  to  the  same  source  as  the  Old 
Testament,  the  mercy  or  grace  of  God. 

Then,  as  has  been  said,  he  unites  the  means  used  in  the 
second  class  of  offences  with  this  primary  class,  making  the 
sacrifice  the  means  of  atonement.  The  Old  Testament  has 
not  gone  so  far  as  this.  It  recognises  the  moral  righteous- 
ness of  Jeliovah,  which  manifests  itself  in  wrath  against 
sin.  But  for  such  sin  there  is  not  sacrificial  atonement ; 
the  sinner's  refuge  is  only  in  God  Himself,  in  the  prevailing 
direction  of  the  Divine  mind,  which  is  towards  mercy  and 
compassion.  And,  secondly,  it  recognises  infirmities  and 
impurities  adhering  to  men  even  when  truly  in  fellowship 
with  God  as  His  people.  And  these  infirmities  of  His 
worshipping  people  disturb  the  Divine  holiness,  whicli  is  in 
danger  of  manifesting  itself  destructively  in  opposition  to 
these  imperfections  of  men,  and  the  infirmities  must  be 
atoned  or  covered.     And  the  means  of  this  covering  is  the 


tSE  OF  TERMS  FOR  ATONEMENT       327 

blood  of  sacrifice  in  virtue  of  the  life  which  it  carries.  It 
is  not  easy  to  remove  from  tliis  second  conception  the 
elements  of  a  relative  kind  which  it  contains,  and  the  shade 
of  physical  conception  of  the  Divine  nature  peculiar  to  it, 
so  as  to  reach  a  pure  general  idea  universally  applicable. 

5.   The  term  'Atone* 

The  references  in  the  Old  Testament  are  scattered 
through  it,  and  have  regard  to  particular  cases.  There  is 
no  single  passage  that  states  a  formal  or  full  doctrine  upon 
the  subject.  It  is  probable  that  a  full  doctrine  of  Atone- 
ment can  hardly  be  obtained  from  tlie  Old  Testament  even 
by  combining  the  passages.  But  traces  of  general  ideas 
may  be  discoverable,  which  lead  in  the  direction  of  the 
more  complete  New  Testament  doctrine. 

(1)  The  word  'atone'  "123  is  not  now  used  in  the  Kal. 
In  Gen.  vi.  14  :  "  Thou  shalt  pitch  it  with  pitch,"  the  word 
is  a  denominative  from  the  noun  ^B3,  '  pitch.'  The  word 
is  now  used  only  in  Piel  and  its  derivatives.  Further,  the 
word  is  no  more  used  in  Scripture  in  its  literal  and 
physical  sense,  but  always  in  a  transferred  metaphorical 
sense.  The  origjinal  meanino;  of  the  word,  however,  was 
certtdnly  to  coveo\  and  so  put  out  of  sight,  or  do  away 
with. 

In  the  cognate  languages  it  is  used  in  the  sense  of  to 
deny,  i.e.  conceal  a  fact. 

That  the  word  means  to  *  cover '  originally  appears 
from  the  synonyms,  e.g.  nD3,  to  cover,  put  out  of  sight,  and 
so  out  of  activity  or  influence,  to  annul  or  invalidate, 
parall.  to  nriD,  Hot  out.  See  Jer.  xviii.  23  :  ^^%  ^V  ns^n  ks 
-n^n-^N  ^"JD^p  ^r\^^^\  Neh.  iii.  37  (iv.  5)  quotes  this  thus  : 
nn?3n-i5N  ^';:D^p  QJ^^^^ni  uy\v  hv  ddfi  i?^.  So  Ts.  Ixxxv.  3  : 
"  Thou  hast  taken  away  tlie  guilt  of  Thy  people.  Thou  hast 
covered  (n^tp?)  all  their  sin  " ;  Ps.  xxxii.  1  :  "  Blessed  is  the 
man  whose  sin  is  covered."  In  this  extra-ritual  use  of 
"iDD  that  wliich  is  atoned  or  covered  is  sin  or  guilt ;  and 
from  the  passage  in  Jeremiah  it  appears  that  it  is  covered 


328   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

from  Jehovah's  sight — T??fP.^  With  this  idea  may  be 
compared  Ps.  xc.  8  :  "  Thou  hast  set  our  iniquities  before 
Thee,  our  secret  sins  in  the  light  of  Thy  countenance." 
Similar  figures,  as  we  have  said,  are  to  remove  or  take 
away  sin,  Isa.  vi.  7  ;  Ps.  xxxii.  1  ;  to  hlot  it  out,  Jer. 
xviii.  23  ;  Isa.  xliii.  25,  xliv.  22  ;  to  cast  into  the  depth 
of  the  sea,  Mic.  vii.  19  ;  to  cast  behind  the  hack,  Isa. 
xxxviii.  17;  cf.  Ps.  cix.  14:  "  Let  the  iniquity  of  his 
fathers  be  remembered  with  the  Lord ;  and  let  not  the 
sin  of  his  mother  be  blotted  out."  And  so  in  the  New 
Covenant,  Jehovah  remembers  sins  no  more.  All  these 
figures  express  the  idea  that  the  sin  is  covered  so  as  to 
have  all  effects  from  it  removed ;  it  is  put  out  of  sight, 
invalidated,  undone.  In  particular,  Jehovah  no  more  sees 
it,  and  it  exerts  no  influence  upon  Him.  Hence  the 
Psalmist  prays :  "  Hide  Thy  face  from  my  sins,"  Ps.  H.  9. 
This  sense  of  undoing  or  annulling  or  invalidating  appears 
in  several  passages,  e.g.  Isa.  xxviii.  18,  already  referred 
to :  "  Your  covenant  with  death  shall  be  disannulled " 
(issn);  and  Isa.  xlvii.  11  speaks  of  a  calamity  which 
"  thou  shalt  not  be  able  to  neutralise."  And  there  is 
the  interesting  passage  in  Prov.  xvi.  6  :  "By  goodness  and 
truth  guilt  or  sin  is  atoned  C^^^])  for,"  which  means 
done  away  with,  the  results  of  it  obviated ;  it  does  not 
mean  that  reparation  is  made  by  goodness  and  truth.  In 
all  these  passages  the  use  of  the  word  is  metaphorical ;  the 
sense  of  literal  covering  no  more  obtains  (cf.  Gen.  xxxii. 
2  0  ;  Prov.  xvi.  1 4).  It  may,  no  doubt,  be  made  a  question, 
seeing  the  word  1S3  is  used  in  parallelism  both  with  the 
word  nD3  cover,  and  also  with  nTO  Hot  out,  which  of  these 

^  If  ns3  mean  to  cover,  and  "i^ia  be  a  covering,  the  question,  as  we  have 
said,  may  be  raised,  and  has  indeed  been  raised,  whether  it  be  the  sin  that 
is  covered  or  God.  Are  God's  eyes  covered  so  that  He  does  not  see  the 
offence,  or  is  the  oiTence  covered  so  that  it  is  not  seen  by  Him  ?  The 
phrases  used  may  suggest  both  sides,  e.g.  the  second  in  the  language,  "Hide 
Thy  face  from  my  sin  !"  and  the  opposite,  to  "set  our  sins  in  the  light  of 
His  countenance."  The  effect  is  the  same,  whether  God  does  not  see  the 
offence,  or  it  be  not  seen  by  Him,  being  invisible  to  Him.  The  questions 
remain  :  {a)  What  produces  this  effect  ?  {b)  How  does  this  produce  the 
eff"ect? 


ATONEMENT    ANT)    FORGIVENESS  829 

two  ideas  is  tlio  priiiuiry  one  in  ">33.  Some  even  think 
that  ">S3  is  a  denominative  from  "IS3,  a  ransom.  But 
"133,  ransom,  is  so  named  because  it  covers,  is's  is  properly 
ransom  money  from  a  death  penalty :  "  Save  him  from 
o'oing  down  to  the  pit ;  I  have  found  a  ransom "  (Job 
xxxiii.  24),  i.e.  tlie  ransom  money  covers  the  oilence.  ^ 

(2)  In  these  extra-ritual  passages  the  subject  or  agent 
who  atones  ("idd)  is,  as  we  have  said,  usually  God  Him- 
self. He  covers  the  sin ;  and  in  this  usage  '  cover '  or 
atone  is  almost  equivalent  to  '  forgive,'  although  the  figure  i 
is  present  to  the  mind  of  the  writer.  See  the  passages 
already  cited — Jer.  xviii.  23:  "Cover  not  their  sin"; 
Ps.  Ixv.  3  :  "  Iniquities  prevail  against  us :  as  for  our  trans- 
gressions, Thou  wilt  atone  them — cover  them "  (D">23ri)  ; 
Ps.  Ixxviii.  38:  "But  he,  being  full  of  compassion, 
atoned  —  covered  —  their  iniquity."  To  these  add  Ps. 
Ixxix.  9  :  "  Help  us,  0  God  of  our  salvation  !  atone,  cover 
our  sins  for  Thy  name's  sake";  Ezek.  xvi.  63:  "Thou 
shalt  open  thy  mouth  no  more  because  of  thy  shame, 
when  I  have  forgiven — atoned  or  covered  to  thee — all 
that  thou  hast  done."  It  is  to  be  observed  that  in  these 
passages  Jehovah  does  not  first  atone  or  cover  the  sin,  and 
then  follow  this  by  forgiveness ;  the  atoning  or  covering  is 
merely  a  figure  for  forgiveness.  It  might  be  that  IDD  in  the 
sense  of  forgive  was  a  secondary  usage,  derived  from  the 
primary  sense  of  to  cover  or  atone,  either  by  a  Life  ransom 
or  by  a  sacrifice  ;  and  that  the  sense  "  forgive  "  was  properly 
to  declare  atoned  for.  It  is  a  question  of  the  genesis  of 
the  sense  forgive.  If  this  were  its  genesis,  forgive  would 
express  properly  the  result  of  the  covering  or  atoning  the 
sin ;  and  as  this  result  always  followed,  the  word  cover  or 
atone  would  come  to  have  the  sense  forgive  when  the  subject 
is  God.  However  the  usage  arose,  the  sense  forgive  is  the 
usual  one.  Considering  that  ">23  is  used  in  the  ritual  and 
non-ritual  sense,  it  is  probable  that  even  in  the  rittial 
'  cover '  has  not  a  literal,  but  a  metaphorical  sense  ;  and 
that  it  is  not  said  in  regard  of  the  blood  l)eing  literally 
laid  on  the  ol)ject  covered  ;  for  in  most  cases  it  is  not ;  it  is 


330   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

brought  before  God,  and  even  in  the  ritual  it  might  be  He 
(or  His  eyes)  tliat  is  covered. 

(3)  There  is  the  question  of  the  means  that  lead  to 
Jehovah's  atoning  or  covering  of  sin,  or  the  motives  that 
induce  Him.  This  point  opens  out  rather  a  wide  inquiry. 
It  may  be  said,  however,  negatively,  that  sacrifice  or  offer- 
ing is  never  the  means.  None  of  the  prophets,  not  even 
Ezekiel,  refers  to  sacrifice  as  the  means  of  atonement 
for  the  sins  of  the  people ;  God  forgives  of  His  grace 
and  mercy  alone.  It  is  possible  that  in  Isa.  liii.  the 
sacrificial  idea  may  *be  present.  There  is,  indeed,  one 
passage  (1  Sam.  iii.  14)  where  reference  seems  to  be 
made  to  a  possible  use  of  sacrifice  wider  than  that  which 
it  ordinarily  has :  "  I  have  sworn  that  the  iniquity  of 
EH's  house  shall  not  be  atoned,  covered,  with  sacrifice 
nor  offering  for  ever."  There  is  another  passage  also  of 
interest  (1  Sam.  xxvi.  19),  where  David  says  to  Saul, 
when  remonstrating  with  him  for  his  persecution  of  him : 
"  If  it  be  the  Lord  that  hath  stirred  thee  up  against  me, 
let  Him  smell  an  offering."  The  ideas  here  are :  David 
regards  Saul's  persecution  of  him  as  an  aberration  of  mind, 
possibly  caused  by  God.  If  caused  by  God,  it  must  be  in 
punishment  of  some  inadvertent  or  unremembered  sin  of 
which  Saul  had  been  guilty.  Therefore  for  this  sin  let 
him  offer  a  sacrifice,  that  Jehovah  may  remove  the 
punishment — the  aberration  of  mind  under  which  the 
king  suffers.  This  is,  however,  just  the  proper  use  of 
sacrifice,  namely,  for  sins  of  inadvertency. 

There  are  several  cases  which  at  first  sight  look  like 
instances  of  sacrifice  which  are  not  so.  One  is  the  case  in 
Deut.  xxi.  8.  This  was  the  case  where  a  murdered  body 
was  found,  without  its  being  possible  to  trace  the  murderer. 
The  elders  of  the  city  nearest  to  which  the  body  was  found 
were  to  take  an  unblemished  heifer,  never  subjected  to 
the  yoke,  bring  her  to  a  valley  with  running  water,  and 
there  slay  her  by  breaking  her  neck.  The  elders  were 
to  wash  their  hands  over  the  heifer,  and  protest  their 
innocence,  "  Our   hands   have   not   shed    this  blood    .    .    . 


JUDICIAL   ACTS  331 

And  they  shall  auswer  and  say,  Atone,  0  Lord,  for  Thy 
people  Israel  .  .  .  suffer  not  innocent  blood  to  remain 
in  the  midst  of  Thy  people.  And  the  blood  shall  be 
atoned  (or,  covered)  to  tliem."  This  is  no  sacrifice,  but 
a  symbolical  judicial  action.  That  the  animal  was  not 
a  sacrifice,  is  certain  from  the  fact  that  her  neck  was 
broken;  a  thing  absolutely  forbidden  in  sacrifice,  where 
the  blood  must  always  be  separated  from  the  flesh.  By 
the  murder,  guilt  was  brought  on  the  land,  which  of 
right  could  be  removed  only  by  the  death  of  the  murderer. 
In  this  case  he  could  not  be  found,  and  a  symbolical 
execution  was  performed ;  which,  illustrating  the  principles 
of  justice,  was  held  sufficient.  A  similar  though  more 
painful  and  tragic  instance  occurs  in  2  Sam.  xxi.  A 
famine  of  three  years  afflicted  the  land  in  David's  days,  and 
on  inquiring  the  cause  of  the  Lord,  David  was  answered: 
"It  is  for  Saul  and  his  bloody  house,  because  he  put  to 
death  the  Gibeonites."  The  narrator  then  explains  to  us 
that  the  Gibeonites  were  not  Israelites,  but  of  the  remnant 
of  the  Amorites ;  but  the  children  of  Israel  had  sworn  to 
them  to  spare  them  (Josh,  ix.),  and  Saul  sought  to  slay 
them  in  his  zeal  for  Judah.  Eeceiving  this  answer,  David 
turned  to  the  Gibeonites,  asking :  "  By  what  means  shall  I 
make  atonement  (""S^N  n?j3),  that  ye  may  bless  the  heritage 
of  the  Lord  ? "  They  answered  :  "  The  man  that  devised 
evil  against  us  .  .  .  let  seven  men  of  his  sons  be  delivered 
unto  us,  and  we  will  hang  them  up  unto  the  Lord."  Now 
this  is  not  a  sacrifice,  but  again  of  the  nature  of  a  judicial 
transaction.  Guilt  lay  on  the  land  because  of  Saul's  sin ; 
this  guilt  was  punished  by  God  with  famine :  the  guilty 
person  could  no  longer  be  made  amenable  himself,  and  lie 
was  made  amenable  in  his  descendants.  The  case  is 
entirely  analogous  to  that  in  Deuteronomy.  They  both 
illustrate  the  principles  of  justice  and  of  God's  government. 
The  case  of  the  Gibeonites  is  entirely  similar  to  tlie 
case  of  the  manslayer.  Num.  xxxv.  32,  33  :  "Ye  shall 
take  no  ransom  for  the  life  of  a  manslayer  who  is  guilty 
of  death.   ...   So  ye  shall  not  pollute  the  land  wherein  ye 


832       THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

are:  for  blood  polluteth  the  land:  and  no  expiation  can  bp 
made  for  the  land  for  the  blood  {nih  '\^y  i6  r-}i6)  shed 
therein,  but  by  the  blood  of  him  that  shed  it."  These 
words  are  from  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  idea  is  expressed 
in  terms  of  holiness  and  pollution. 

As  it  is  Jehovah  who  covers  or  atones  sin,  naturally 
the  motive  is  usually  found  in  Himself.  And  here  a  pre- 
liminary point  retjuires  to  be  remembered.  The  effect  of 
sin  upon  Jehovah,  whatever  the  sin  was, — whether  idolatry, 
wrong-doing,  or  disobedience, — was  to  arouse  His  anger  or 
wrath.  The  Divine  wrath,  of  course,  is  not  an  attribute 
like  His  righteousness.  Wrath  in  God  is  what  it  is  in  men, 
— an  affection,  a  pathos, — and  is  transient.  The  Divine 
nature  is  capable  of  wrath,  although  God  is  slow  to  anger. 
Then  the  natural  result  of  wrath  is  punishment  of  the 
wrong-doer.  But  as  wrath  is  but  an  affection,  and  not 
the  fundamental  character  of  the  Divine  mind,  which  rather 
is  long-suffering  and  compassion,  this  prevailing  disposition 
may  so  restrain  the  anger  that  no  chastisement  follows, 
but  there  is  forgiveness;  Ps.  Ixxviii.  38,  39:  "They  (the 
people)  were  not  faithful  in  His  covenant.  But  He, 
being  full  of  compassion,  forgave  their  iniquity,  and  de- 
stroyed them  not :  yea,  many  a  time  turned  He  His 
anger  away,  and  stirred  not  up  all  His  wrath.  For  He 
remembered  that  they  were  flesh."  Very  often  God  is 
represented  as  restraining  His  anger  "  for  His  name's  sake." 
The  phrase  is  peculiar  to  the  later  books,  and  embraces 
a  variety  of  ideas.  In  Isa.  xl.  and  in  Ezekiel  this  is 
the  idea  expressed  by  the  phrase :  "  Jehovah  is  God  alone, 
but  He  has  become  God  of  Israel."  The  nations  know 
Him  only  as  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel.  Therefore  He 
can  reveal  Himself  to  the  nations  only  in  connection 
with  Israel,  for  they  know  Him  only  as  God  of  Israel. 
His  purpose  is  to  reveal  Himself  to  all  flesh.  But  this 
purpose  can  be  effected  only  through  Israel.  Hence  His 
name,  His  honour  as  God  alone,  is  involved  in  Israel's 
history,  whose  God  He  is.  He  has  begun  a  redemptive 
work  in  the  world  with  Israel,  a  work  which  is  to  embrace 


JEHOVAH'S    REOtARD    FOR   HIS    NAME  ^?>^ 

the  natious,  and  He  cannot  undo  tliis  woik  however  Israel 
may  sin.  Tins  consideration  restrains  His  anger  against 
Israel.  So  it  is  in  tlie  poem,  Dent,  xxxii.  26,  27  :  "I 
would  make  the  remembrance  of  them  (Israel)  cease  from 
among  men,  were  it  not  that  I  feared  the  })rovocation  of 
the  enemy,  lest  their  adversaries  should  misdeem,  lest  they 
should  say.  Our  hand  is  exalted." 

In  Ezek  xx.  the  whole  course  of  Israel's  history  is 
explained  on  this  principle.  That-  which  has  prolonged 
the  existence  of  Israel  as  a  people,  and  given  them  a 
history,  is  Jehovah's  regard  for  His  own  name.  He  is 
conscious  of  being  God  alone,  and  He  has  become  God 
of  Israel ;  in  this  hght  alone  the  nations  know  Him, 
only  thus  does  knowledge  of  Him  reach  the  nations. 
Therefore  His  name  would  be  compromised  in  Israel's 
destruction ;  His  work  of  redemption  and  revelation  of 
Himself  to  the  nations  begun  upon  the  earth  would  be 
obliterated  and  made  of  none  effect.  His  preservation  and 
final  redemption  of  His  people  Israel  is  that  which  reveals 
His  name,  His  sole  Godhead,  to  the  nations.  Hence,  even 
when  the  trials  of  the  Exile  had  failed  to  turn  the  hard 
hearts  of  the  people,  Jehovah  exclaims :  "  For  My  name's 
sake  do  I  defer  Mine  anger  .  .  .  that  I  cut  thee  not  off. 
I  have  refined  thee,  but  not  as  silver"  (i.e.  not  with  the 
result  with  which  one  refines  silver).  "  For  Mine  own 
sake,  for  Mine  own  sake  do  I  do  it :  for  how^  should  My 
name  be  profaned,  and  My  glory  will  I  not  give  to 
another"  (Isa.  xlviii.  9—11).  Naturally  the  expression, 
His  '  name's  sake,'  expresses  many  other  things  besides 
this,  such  as  the  fact  that  Israel  is  His  people  whom 
He  hath  redeemed,  and  His  affection  for  their  forefathers. 
Thus  in  Deut.  ix.  26—29,  Moses  prays :  "  0  Lord  God, 
destroy  not  Thy  people  and  Thine  inheritance,  which  Thou 
hast  redeemed.  .  .  .  Eemember  Thy  servants  Abraham, 
Isaac,  and  Jacob ;  look  unto  the  stubbornness  of  this  people 
.  .  .  lest  Egypt  say,  Because  the  Lord  was  not  able  to 
bring  them  into  the  land  which  He  promised  them,  and 
because   He   hated  them,  therefore  He  slew  them   in   the 


334     THE  theoloOtY  of  the  old  testament 

wilderness.  Yet  they  are  Tliy  peo]ile  and  Thine  in- 
heritance." We  liave  tlie  same  circle  of  ideas  in  Ex. 
xxxii.  10—14  and  Num.  xiv.  15-20.  In  the  latter 
passage,  Moses  prays :  "  If  Thou  slialt  kill  this  people 
as  one  man,  the  nations  which  have  heard  the  fame  of 
Thee  will  speak,  saying,  Because  Jehovah  was  not  able 
to  bring  them  into  tlie  land  which  He  swore  to  give  them, 
therefore  He  slew  them  in  the  wilderness.  And  now  .  .  . 
let  the  power  of  my  Lord  be  great,  according  as  Thou 
hast  spoken,  The  Lord  is  slow  to  anger,  and  plenteous  in 
mercy  .  .  .  Pardon,  I  pray  Thee,  the  iniquity  of  this 
people  according  to  the  greatness  of  Thy  mercy.  And  the 
Lord  said,  I  pardon  according  to  thy  word." 

(4)  There  is  another  aspect  of  the  case  which  is  illus- 
trated in  the  history  of  the  people  in  the  wilderness,  and  in 
all  the  prophets.  In  the  history  of  the  Exodus  the  anger 
of  God  against  the  people's  rebellion  expressed  itself  in 
plagues ;  and  in  the  prophets,  in  the  people's  subjugation 
by  the  nations  and  ejection  from  their  land,  with  all  the 
terrible  sufferings  connected  with  the  Exile.  Yet  a  full 
end  was  not  made  of  the  people.  The  eyes  of  the  Lord 
are  upon  the  sinful  kingdom  to  destroy  it,  saving  that  He 
will  not  altogether  destroy  the  house  of  Jacob  (Amos  ix.  8). 
The  point  here  is  that  the  righteous  anger  of  Jehovah  dis- 
played and  enforced  itself.  It  received,  so  far,  a  certain 
illustration.  Jehovah  did  not  stir  up  all  His  wrath,  nor 
make  a  full  end  of  the  nation,  which  would  have  been  the 
natural  penalty  of  their  disobedience ;  but  His  righteous 
anger  was  displayed,  and  His  rule  vindicated  so  far.  In 
His  returning  mercy  He  might  even  feel  that  He  had 
chastised  too  harshly.  "  Speak  comfortably  to  Jerusalem, 
and  say  unto  her,  She  hath  received  double  for  all  her 
sins"  (Isa.  xl.   2). 

(5)  And  one  other  point  may  be  referred  to.  A  few 
cases  occur  where  human  intercession  is  had  respect  to, 
and  God  averts  His  anger  and  forgives.  We  have  the 
instance  of  Abraham  in  Gen.  xviii.  23—33.  There  is  the 
case    in    Amos    (vii.    4—6).      Preparations    for    destroying 


ACTS   OF   INTERCESSION  335 

[sracl  were  shown  liiin,  and  he  prayed :  "  0  Lord,  forgive, 
r  beseech  Thee :  how  shall  Jacob  stand  ?  for  he  is  small." 
And  the  Lord  said :  "  It  shall  not  be."  Jeremiah,  again, 
frequently  intercedes  for  Israel,  tliough  both  to  him  and 
to  Ezekiel  the  intimation  is  given  that  the  time  for  inter- 
cession is  past :  "  Though  Moses  and  Samuel  stood  before 
Me,  My  mind  could  not  be  toward  this  people  :  cast  them 
out  of  My  sight  '  (Jer.  xv.  1).  In  the  wilderness,  when 
the  people  made  the  golden  calf,  Moses  interceded  with 
effect :  "  The  Lord  said :  ...  it  is  a  stiff-necked  people. 
Now  therefore  let  Me  alone,  that  My  wratli  may  wax  hot 
against  them,  that  I  may  consume  them :  and  I  will  make 
of  thee  a  great  nation"  (Ex.  xxxii.  9,  10).  Moses  prayed, 
making  the  representations  already  quoted  in  the  passage 
in  Num.  xiv.  And  the  Lord  repented  of  the  evil  which 
He  thought  to  do  to  Israel.  In  a  subsequent  part  of  the 
chapter  there  is  recorded  a  slaughter  of  three  thousand 
men  which  the  Levites  made  among  the  people.  And 
Moses  said  on  the  morrow  to  the  people  :  "  Ye  have  sinned 
a  great  sin  :  and  now  I  will  go  up  unto  the  Lord  ;  per- 
adventure  I  may,  make  an  atonement  ("^If?^.  ""r"^^),  for  your 
sin."  Moses  prayed  :  "  Oh,  this  people  have  sinned  a  great 
sin.  Yet  now,  if  Thou  wilt  forgive  their  sin — ;  and  if 
not,  blot  me  out  of  Thy  book  which  Thou  hast  written." 
Moses  acknowledges  the  sin,  and  will  not  outlive  the  de- 
struction of  the  people.  It  is  not  certain  what  is  meant 
when  he  says :  "  Perhaps  I  may  atone  (or,  cover)  for  your 
sin  " ;  whether  it  is  that  he  himself  will  be  able  to  remove 
it  from  God's  sight,  or  that  he  will  be  able  so  to  intercede 
that  God  may  cover  it.  The  latter  is  probal)ly  the  mean- 
ing, for  Moses  prays  Jehovah  to  take  away  the  i)eople's  sin. 
So  that  his  intercession  does  not  atone  in  the  technical 
sense.  Moses  identifies  liimself  with  the  people,  devotedly 
refusing  life  to  himself  if  the  people  are  to  perish  ;  then 
he  profoundly  feels  and  acknowledges  the  people's  sin, 
which  from  tlie  relaticm  lie  assumes  to  them  may  be  con- 
sidered their  confession. 

There  is  an  important  passage  in  Num.  xxv.  10—13. 


336        THE    THEOLOGY    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

The  case  is  that  of  the  sin  of  Israel  with  the  Midianitisn 
women.  Phiiiehas,  seeing  an  IsraeHte  bring  in  a  Midianitish 
woman  for  purposes  of  fornication,  smote  tliem  both  through 
with  a  dart.  And  the  Lord  said :  "  Phinehas  hath  turned 
My  wrath  away  from  the  children  of  Israel,  in  that  he 
w^as  jealous  with  My  jealousy  among  them,  so  that  I  con- 
sumed them  not  in  My  jealousy.  Therefore  I  give  unto 
him  my  covenant  of  peace,  because  he  was  jealous  for  his 
God,  and  made  atonement  for  the  children  of  Israel"  (^23^1). 
This  fornication  appears  to  have  been  part  of  the  religious 
worship  of  the  Baal  of  Peor.  Here  it  is  the  zeal  of 
Phinehas  that  atones,  his  zeal  expressing  itself  in  the  act 
of  vengeance  upon  the  sinners.  It  does  so  because  this 
zeal  is  the  zeal  of  Jehovah.  Phinehas  enters  into  Jehovah's 
mind,  acts  in  His  mind,  and  thereby  magnifies  and  sanctifies 
Him.     This  atones. 

In  one  instance.  Num.  xvi.  46  (Heb.  xvii.  11),  when 
the  plague  had  broken  out  among  the  people  because  of 
the  rebellion  of  Korah,  incense  atones  :  "  Moses  said  unto 
Aaron :  Take  a  censer,  and  put  fire  therein  from  off  the 
altar,  and  put  on  incense,  and  go  quickly  into  the  con- 
gregation, and  make  atonement  for  them  .  .  .  xlnd  he  put 
on  incense,  and  made  atonement  for  the  people.  And  he 
stood  between  the  living  and  the  dead,  and  the  plague 
was  stayed."  This  is  the  only  case  where  incense  alone 
has  atoning  power.  The  passage,  however,  ought  rather  to 
be  classed  among  the  ritual  passages. 

The  result  of  this  examination  of  passages  in  regard  to 
forgiveness  and  atonement,  tliough  not  very  large,  is  of 
interest.      The  chief  points  are  these  : 

1.  God  alone  forgives  sin  and  covers  it.  To  cover  or 
atone  for  it,  when  said  of  God,  is  a  mere  figure  for  forgive- 
ness, and  means  obliterating  it,  as  the  other  word  *  blot 
out'  implies. 

2.  Though  sin  excites  the  anger  of  God,  anger  is  with 
Him  but  a  passing  emotion,  as  the  Psalmist  (Ps.  xxx.  5) 
says :  "  His  anger  is  but  for  a  moment ;  His  favour  for  a 
lifetime."     The  prevailing  tone  of  His  nature  is  mercy,  and 


WAYS    OF    SATISFACTION  337 

on  penitence  and  confession  He  is  ready  to  forgive,  apart 
from  all  sacrifice  or  what  is  called  atonement  :  "  I  said,  I 
will  confess  my  traiigressions  unto  the  Lord ;  and  Tliou 
forgavest  the  iniquity  of  my  sin  "  (Ps.  xxxii.  5). 

3.  Motives  to  forgiveness,  wiiicli  He  finds  in  Himself, 
are  many,  e.g.  His  compassion.  His  memory  of  His  former 
servants  the  patriarchs — "for  My  servant  David's  sake," 
respect  to  His  covenant,  and  for  His  own  name's  sake ; 
wiiich  last  embraces  a  multitude  of  considerations,  par- 
ticularly His  universal  redemptive  purpose,  which  has  been 
begun  in  Israel  and  can  be  accomplislied  only  through 
Israel,  whose  God  He  is  known  to  be,  though  he  be  God 
alone. 

4.  The  wrath  called  forth  by  the  sin  of  individuals  or  of 
His  people  often  expresses  itself  in  plagues  on  the  people ; 
and  in  all  the  prophets,  in  their  humiliation  under  the 
nations  and  exile  from  their  land.  Thus  His  righteous 
anger  receives  a  certain  satisfaction — it  is  displayed ;  as 
Isa.  V.  16  expresses  it.  He  is  magnified  in  judgment  and 
sanctified  in  righteousness.  His  nature  is  revealed.  His 
righteousness  is  declared  or  shown  (Eom.  iii.  25).  Yet  a 
full  end  is  not  made.  He  does  not  stir  up  His  wrath,  but 
restrains  it. 

5.  In  another  way  satisfaction  is  rendered  to  Him,  and 
His  anger  is  appeased — namely,  when  men  enter  into  His 
just  resentment,  and,  feeling  it,  act  in  the  mind  of  God;  as 
when  the  Levites  intervened  to  chastise  the  people  for 
their  idolatry  in  worshipping  the  calf,  or  when  Phinehas 
was  jealous  with  the  jealousy  of  the  Lord,  and  did  judgment 
upon  the  Israelitish  prince  and  his  Midianitish  paramour. 
More  simply,  God's  anger  is  turned  away,  and  sin  covered 
(atoned),  by  the  intercession  of  His  nearest  servants,  as 
Abraham,  Moses,  Samuel.  There  is  a  solidarity  between 
these  men  and  the  people.  Their  confession  of  the  people's 
sin  is  the  people's  confession.  And  yet  they  are  different ; 
they  are  near  to  God.  He  has  respect  unto  them.  Their 
intercession  usually  sets  before  God  tliose  great  motives  in 
Himself  from  which  He  acts — His  compassion,  His  covenant, 

22 


338   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

His  redemptive  purpose  already  begun,  His  name's  sake, 
i.e.  His  sole  Godhesid,  and  yet  His  being  known  alone  in 
Israel.  With  the  intercession  tliere  is  always  confession 
of  Israel's  sin. 

These  are  the  main  points  in  early  literature.  What 
elements  of  the  Christian  doctrine  they  show  is  easily 
seen. 

Taking  all  these  points  together,  three  main  principles 
appear : 

1.  God's  nature  is  gracious;  from  His  nature  He  will 
take  away  the  sin  of  the  world. 

2.  There  may  be  in  His  operation  in  doing  this,  first, 
a  display  of  His  righteous  anger  against  sin ;  and,  second, 
also  on  the  part  of  sinful  men  or  their  representative,  an 
entering  into  this  righteous  indignation. 

And,  3.  On  the  part  of  those  forgiven  there  must  be 
repentance,  and  trust  in  God's  mercy. 


6.  Ritual  use  of  the  Term. 

From  Atonement,  as  it  appears  in  the  extra-ritual  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  we  pass  now  to  the  ritual  atone- 
ment. The  law  or  ritual  legislation  is  very  extensive,  and 
not  altogether  homogeneous,  and  does  not  formally  give 
any  account  of  atonement.  It  regulates  the  offerings, 
but  it  introduces  us  to  the  ritual  system  as  already  in 
operation,  without  giving  any  account  how  it  began,  or 
w^hat  are  the  principles  embodied  in  it.  Its  two  funda- 
mental positions  are  that  all  sacrifices  must  be  offered  at 
one  place  ;  and  that  only  the  priests,  the  sons  of  Aaron,  can 
offer  or  make  atonement.  There  is  one  writer,  however, 
who  stands  lialf-way  between  the  extra-ritual  or  proplictic 
Scriptures  and  the  ritual  law,  the  prophet  Ezekiel ;  and  we 
gain  a  clearer  view  of  the  nature  and  purposes  of  the  ritual 
law  from  him  than  we  acquire  from  the  law  itself.  The 
last  nine  chapters  of  his  book  furnish  a  key  that  opens  the 
ritual  law  more  easily  than  anything  which  we  find  in  the 
law  itself. 


I 


EZEKIEL    AND    HIS    BOOK  339 

The  Book  of  Ezckicl,  although  prol)ably  not  much  read, 
is  perhaps,  apart  from  occasional  didiculties,  the  easiest 
understood  of  all  the  pro])lietic  books.  The  book  was 
probably  written  late  in  life,  and  the  writer  has  so  disposed 
it  as  to  make  its  mere  order  accurately  express  his  general 
conceptions. 

(1)  In  chaps,  i.— iii.  there  is  the  great  vision  of  God 
borne  by  the  clierubim,  and  the  initiation  by  the  God  who 
thus  manifests  Himself,  of  the  prophet  into  his  office  of 
a  watchman  among  his  people.  The  vision  in  chap.  i.  is  a 
vision  of  God  as  the  prophet  conceived  Him.  Then  God, 
thus  present  symbolically,  makes  the  prophet  conscious  of 
his  inspiration  and  of  the  fact  that  Jehovah  is  with  him 
in  all  he  speaks,  by  presenting  to  him  the  roll  of  a  book, 
containincr  all  Jehovah's  words,  which  he  eats,  and  which 
he  feels  sweet  to  his  taste.  The  sweetness  was  not  due  to 
this,  that  though  the  book,  being  full  of  lamentation  and 
woe,  contained  bitter  things  at  first,  at  the  end  it  was  filled 
with  promises  which  were  sweet.  The  sweetness  was  rather 
due  to  this,  that  the  things  written  were  from  God,  whose 
bitter  word  is  sweet ;  as  we  have  it  in  Jer.  xv.  16:  "  Thy 
words  were  found,  and  I  did  eat  them ;  and  Thy  word  was 
unto  me  the  joy  and  rejoicing  of  mine  heart :  for  I  am 
called  by  Thy  name,  Jehovah  God  of  hosts."  The  prophet's 
idea  of  what  we  call  his  inspiration  is  perhaps  more  pre- 
cise and  stringent  than  that  of  Isaiah.  In  the  inaugural 
vision  of  Isaiah,  "  there  flew  one  of  the  seraphim  having  a 
live  coal  in  his  hand,  .  .  .  and  he  laid  it  on  my  mouth, 
and  said,  Lo,  this  hath  touched  thy  lips,  and  thine  iniquity 
is  taken  away"  (vi.  6,  7).  And  immediately  on  this  an 
impulse  seized  the  prophet  to  enter  on  Jehovah's  service. 
"  Here  am  I,  send  me."  All  that  Isaiah  felt  needful  to 
make  him  a  prophet  was  the  forgiveness  of  his  sin.  Tiiere 
was  in  him  a  strength  and  power  of  character  which 
needed  only  the  removal  of  the  moral  hindrance  to  set 
tliem  free.  lUit  l)oth  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel  were  weaker 
men.  Ezekiel,  as  is  usual  with  him,  makes  Jeremiah  his 
model,  who  says,  "  The  Lord  said  unto  me,  Whatsoever  I 


340        TFfE   THEOLOGY    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

coiuraaiid  thee,  that  shalt  thou  speak.  .  .  .  Then  the  Lord 
put  forth  His  hand,  and  touched  my  mouth,  saying,  Behold, 
I  have  put  My  words  in  thy  mouth  "  (i.  7—9).  Both  the 
later  prophets  represent  themselves  as  speaking  not  merely 
the  word,  hut  the  '  words '  of  Jehovah. 

Now,  from  this   point   onwards  Ezekiel's  hook   has  a 
clear  order. 

(2)  Chaps,  iv.— xxiv.  contain  prophecies  announcing  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  symbolical  actions  prefiguring 
it.      These   actions,  or   at  least   many  of  them,  were  not 
actually  performed.     They  passed  as  symbolical  representa- 
tions before  the  prophet's  mind,  for  he  thought  in  figures, 
and  he  narrated  them  to  the  people.     With  great  wealth 
and  variety  of  representation  the  prophet  exhibits  in  these 
chapters  the  certainty  and  manner  of  the  destruction  of  the 
city,  and  the  ruin  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  ;  and  the  neces- 
sity of  it  from  the  persistent  sin  of  the  people,  and  the  nature 
of  Jehovah,  who  must  display  His  holiness  in  judgment. 
There  is  much  in  these  chapters   that  is  very  powerful  as 
well  as  beautiful — some  things  which  show  that  if  Ezekiel 
had  lived  in  our  day  he  would  have  risen  to  the  highest 
rank  in  moral  imaginative  writing.      His  xvith  chapter  is 
an  allegory  of  Jerusalem  under  the  figure  of  a  foundling 
child  who  became  a  faithless  wife.      Though  marked  by  a 
breadth  with  which  modern  taste  is  unfamiliar,  the  allegory 
is  powerful ;  and  when  the  details  are  forgotten,  and  only 
the  general  conception  remains  in  the  mind,  the  prophet's 
creation  is  felt  to  be  artistically  beautiful  as  well  as  true. 
Jerusalem    and    Jehovah    are    represented.       An     outcast 
infant  exposed  on  the  open  field,  and  weltering  in  its  blood, 
was  seen  by  the  pitying  eye  of  a  passer-by.     Eescued  and 
nourished,  she  grew  up  to  the  fairest  womanhood,  and  be- 
came the  wife  of  her  benefactor,  who  lavished  on  her  all 
that  could  delight  and  elevate.      But  the  ways  into  which 
he  led  her  were  too  lofty  to  be  understood,  and  the  atmo- 
sphere around  her   too  pure  for  her  to  breathe ;    the  old 
inborn  nature  (her  fatlier  was  an  Amorite  and  her  mother 
a    Hittite)   was    still    there    beneath    all    the    refinements 


EZEKIEL    AND    THE    DIVINE   JUDGMENTS  341 

for  Avliich  it  had  no  taste,  and  at  last  the  native  taint  in 
her  hlood  asserted  itself  in  shameless  depravity  and  in- 
satial)le  lewdness. 

(3)  Chaps,  xxv.-xlviii.  As  in  tlie  first  half  of  his  ]3ook 
Ezekiel's  thoughts  are  occupied  with  the  coming  destruction 
of  Jerusalem  and  Judah,  so  in  the  last  half  he  is  occupied 
with  the  restoration  and  final  felicity  of  Israel.  There  are 
three  steps  in  his  delineation — (a)  judgments  on  the  liis- 
torical  nations  around  Israel,  in  order  to  prepare  for  the 
restoration  of  Israel  (chaps,  xxv.— xxxii.) ;  (b)  the  process  of 
Israel's  restoration  itself  (chaps,  xxxiii.-xxxix.) ;  and  (c) 
finally,  a  picture  of  Israel's  restored  and  perfect  condition 
(chaps,  xl.— xlviii.  5). 

We  may  look  at  each  of  these.  First,  chaps,  xxv.— 
xxxii.  The  judgments  on  the  nations.  - —  Israel  occupies  a 
place  of  universal  significance  in  the  history  of  the  world ; 
for  it  is  the  people  of  Jehovah,  who  is  God  alone.  He  who 
is  God  alone,  we  are  again  taught,  has  become  God  of  Israel, 
and  it  is  through  Israel  that  He  is  known  to  the  nations, 
and  through  Israel  and  her  history  that  He  will  fully  reveal 
Himself  to  the  peoples  of  tlie  world.  The  perfect  mani- 
festation of  Himself  will  be  seen  in  Israel's  restoration, 
when  His  glory  shall  be  revealed,  and  all  flesh  shall  see  it 
together.  But  this  restoration  of  Israel  cannot  be  without 
great  judgments  on  the  nations  who  have  hitherto  harassed 
her  or  seduced  her.  These  judgments  will  awaken  the 
nations  to  the  knowledge  of  who  the  God  of  Israel  is :  they 
shall  give  them  to  know  that  He  is  Jehovah,  God  alone ; 
and  they  will  ensure  that  in  the  future  His  people  shall 
not  be  troul)led  or  led  astray.  Chastisement  overtakes  the 
nations  for  two  sins,  first,  because  of  their  demeanour  to- 
wards Israel,  the  people  of  the  Lord  ;  for  they  had  taken 
part  in  Jerusalem's  destruction,  as  Edom,  or  liad  rejoiced 
over  it,  as  Amnion  and  Moab ;  or  they  had  been  a  snare  to 
Israel,  inspiring  false  trust  and  seducing  lier  from  the  true 
God,  as  Egypt.  And,  secondly,  judgment  falls  on  them  be- 
cause of  their  ungodly  ])ride  and  self-deification,  as  in  the 
case  of  Tyre  and  Egypt,  and  their  failure  to  acknowledge 


342   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

Him  as  God  who  is  God  alone.  And  the  issue  of  His 
judgments  in  all  cases  is,  that  the  nations  know  that  He  is 
Jehovah,  Crod  alone ;  and  thus  in  the  future  all  the  peoples 
around  Israel  will  no  more  injure  her.  When  restored,  she 
shall  dwell  in  perfect  peace. 

Second,  chaps,  xxxiii.— xxxix.  The  iirocess  of  the  restora- 
tion of  Israel  itself. — It  is  in  these  chapters  that  the  main 
part  of  the  prophet's  contributions  to  Old  Testament 
theology  He,  such  as  his  teaching  on  the  place  of  the 
individual  soul  before  God  (chap,  xxxiii.).  In  general,  he 
reviews  all  that  was  evil  or  calamitous  in  the  past,  and  inti- 
mates how  it  shall  be  reversed  and  remedied.  For  example, 
the  shepherds  of  the  people,  the  royal  house,  had  destroyed 
alike  themselves  and  the  flock.  But  the  Lord  Himself  will 
take  in  hand  the  gathering  of  His  scattered  sheep  together, 
and  the  feeding  of  them  henceforth ;  He  will  appoint  His 
servant  David  over  them  to  lead  them  (chap,  xxxiv.). — Here 
belongs  the  splendid  vision  of  the  valley  of  dry  bones. 
The  nation  is  dead,  and  its  bones  bleached ;  but  there  shall 
be  a  resurrection  of  the  dead  people,  and  a  restoration  of 
them  to  their  own  land.  Two  kingdoms  shall  no  more 
exist  there ;  but  the  Lord's  people  shall  be  one,  and  His 
servant  David  shall  be  prince  over  them  for  ever  (chap, 
xxxvii.).  There  is  one  passage  in  these  chapters,  where 
the  redemptive  principles  illustrated  in  these  future  blessings 
and  in  all  Israel's  history  are  stated,  which  is  very  remark- 
able. That  is  chap,  xxxvi.  17—38  :  "  Son  of  man,  when  the 
house  of  Israel  dwelt  in  their  own  land,  they  defiled  it  by 
their  doings  .  .  .  wherefore  I  poured  out  My  fury  upon 
them  .  .  .  and  scattered  them  among  the  nations.  And 
when  they  came  among  the  nations  they  profaned  My  holy 
name,  in  that  men  said  of  them.  These  are  the  people  of 
Jehovah,  and  they  are  gone  forth  out  of  His  land. 
Therefore  say  unto  the  house  of  Israel,  I  do  not  this  for 
your  sake,  0  house  of  Israel,  but  for  Mine  holy  name,  which 
ye  have  profaned.  .  .  .  And  I  will  sanctify  My  great  name, 
and  tlie  nations  shall  know  that  I  am  Jehovah.  .  .  .  For 
I  will  take  you  from  the  nations,  and  will  bring  you  into 


EZEKIEL    AND    ST.    PAUL  343 

your  own  land.  And  T  will  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you, 
and  yo  shall  bo  clean.  A  new  lieaii  also  will  1  give  you, 
and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you.  .  .  .  And  I  will  put 
My  spirit  within  you  .  .  .  and  ye  shall  keep  My  judgments, 
and  do  them.  Then  shall  ye  remember  your  evil  ways, 
and  ye  shall  loathe  yourselves  because  of  your  iniquities." 
Probably  no  passage  in  the  Old  Testament  oilers  so 
complete  a  parallel  to  New  Testament  doctrine,  particularly 
to  that  of  St.  Paul.  Commentators  complain  that  nobody 
reads  Ezekiel  now.  It  is  not  certain  that  St.  Paul  read 
him,  for  he  nowhere  quotes  him.  But  the  redemptive 
conceptions  of  the  two  writers  are  the  same,  and  appear  in 
the  same  order:  1.  Forgiveness — "I  will  sprinkle  clean 
water  upon  you  "  ;  2.  Eegeneration — "  A  new  heart  and 
spirit " ;  3.  The  Spirit  of  God  as  the  ruling  power  in  the 
new  life — "  I  will  put  My  Spirit  within  you " ;  4.  The 
issue  of  this  new  principle  of  life,  the  keeping  of  the 
requirements  of  God's  law — "  That  the  righteousness  of 
the  law  might  be  fulfilled  in  us,  who  walk  not  after  the 
flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit  (Eom.  viii.  4) " ;  5.  The  effect  of 
living  '  under  grace '  in  softening  the  human  heart  and 
leading  to  obedience — "  Ye  shall  remember  your  evil  ways 
and  loathe  yourselves  " — "  Shall  we  sin  because  not  under 
law  but  under  grace  ? "  (Eom.  vi.— vii.).  And,  finally,  the 
organic  connection  of  Israel's  history  with  Jehovah's  reve- 
lation of  Himself  to  the  nations  (Eom.  xi.). 

Third,  the  last  section  of  the  prophet's  book  (chaps,  xl., 
xlvitt.).  This  contains  his  vision  of  the  new  temple,  with 
all  its  measurements,  including  those  of  the  outer  and 
inner  courts  (chaps,  xl.-xlii.).  Then  there  is  a  vision  of 
the  return  of  Jehovah,  who  had  left  Jerusalem,  and  His 
glorious  entry  into  the  new  house  prepared  for  Him,  by 
the  east  gate,  by  which  He  had  gone  out ;  which  gate 
therefore  shall  remain  for  ever  shut  (chap,  xliii.).  There 
follow  certain  regulations  as  to  who  shall  serve  Him  in 
sacrifice  and  offering,  namely,  the  priests  the  sons  of 
Zadok ;  and  who  shall  be  subordinate  ministers  to  guard 
the  portals  of   the  house,  slaughter  the  victims  and   the 


344   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

like,  namely,  the  Levites,  the  former  priests  at  the  high 
places,  now  degraded  to  inferior  functions  for  their  idolatry. 
Then  follow  regulations  for  two  half-yearly  atonements  for 
the  people  and  the  house.  And  finally  comes  a  description 
of  how  the  restored  tribes  shall  be  settled  in  the  land. 

Now,  in  order  to  understand  this  vision,  all  the  preceding 
parts  of  the  prophet's  book  must  be  kept  in  mind.  This 
passage  contains  no  teaching.  All  that  the  prophet  wished 
to  impress  upon  his  people  regarding  Jehovah  and  the 
principles  of  His  rule.  His  holiness  and  wrath  against  evil, 
has  been  exhausted  (chap,  iv.— xxiv.).  All  that  he  desired 
to  say  about  the  revelation  of  Jehovah's  glory  to  the  nations, 
that  they  may  know  that  He  is  Jehovah,  and  may  no  more 
exalt  themselves  against  Him  in  self-deification,  and  no 
more  disturb  or  seduce  His  people,  has  been  said  (chaps. 
XXV.— xxxii.).  And  the  great  operations  of  Jehovah's  grace 
in  regenerating  His  people  and  in  restoring  them  have  been 
fully  described  (chaps,  xxxiii.— xxxix.).  All  this  forms  the 
background  of  the  present  section.  The  last  words  of 
chaps,  i.— xxxix.  are :  "  And  I  will  hide  My  face  from  them 
no  more :  for  I  have  poured  out  My  spirit  upon  the  house 
of  Israel,  saith  the  Lord  God."  The  people  have  been 
washed  with  pure  water,  a  new  spirit  has  been  given  them. 
The  Spirit  of  Jehovah  rules  their  life,  and  they  know  that 
Jehovah  is  their  God. 

Therefore  this  section  gives  a  picture  of  the  people 
in  their  final  condition  of  redemption  and  felicity.  It 
does  not  describe  how  salvation  is  to  be  attained,  for  the 
salvation  is  realised  and  enjoyed ;  it  describes  the  people, 
and  their  condition  and  life  now  that  redemption  has  come. 
This  accounts  for  the  strange  mixture  of  elements  in  the 
picture,  for  the  fact  that  there  is  "  so  much  of  earth,  so 
much  of  heaven,"  in  it.  To  us  who  have  clearer  light,  the 
natural  and  supernatural  seem  strangely  commingled.  But 
this  confusion-  is  common  to  all  the  prophetic  pictures  of 
the  final  condition  of  Israel,  e.g.,  Isa.  Ix.,  and  must  not 
be  allowed  to  lead  us  astray.  We  should  go  far  astray  if, 
on  the  one  hand,  fastening  our  attention  on  the  natural 


THE    RESTORATION   IN    EZEKIEL  345 

elements  in  tlie  picture,  sucli  as  tliat  men  still  exist  in 
natural  bodies,  tbat  they  live  l)y  the  fruits  of  the  earth, 
that  death  is  not  abolished,  and  that  the  prince  has 
descendants  and  the  like,  we  should  conclude  that  the 
supernatural  elements  in  the  picture,  such  as  Jehovah's 
abode  in  glory  in  the  ne.w  House,  and  the  issue  of  the 
stream  from  the  temple,  spreading  fertility  around  it  and 
sweetening  the  waters  of  the  Dead  Sea,  were  mere  figures  or 
symbols  meaning  nothing  but  a  higher  spiritual  condition 
after  the  Restoration,  and  that  the  Restoration  foreseen 
by  Ezekiel  was  nothing  more  than  that  natural  one  which 
took  place  under  Zerubbabel.  Ezekiel's  Restoration  is 
one  that  is  complete  and  final,  embracing  all  the  scattered 
tribes ;  it  is  a  resurrection  of  the  nation,  and  it  is  the 
entrance  of  Israel  upon  its  final  perfection.  On  the  other 
hand,  we  should  go  equally  far  astray  if,  fastening  our 
attention  only  on  the  supernatural  parts  of  the  picture, 
such  as  Jehovah's  presence  and  the  river  of  life  issuing 
from  the  temple,  we  should  conclude  that  the  whole  is 
nothing  but  a  gigantic  allegory,  that  the  temple  with  its 
measurements,  the  courts  with  their  chambers  and  kitchens 
for  cooking  the  sacrificial  meals,  the  priests  and  their 
ministrations, — that  all  this  in  the  prophet's  view  is 
nothing  but  a  lofty  symbolism  representing  a  perfection  to 
be  eventually  reached  in  the  Church  of  Christ.  To  put 
such  a  meaning  on  the  temple  and  its  measurements,  the 
courts  and  chambers  and  kitchens,  is  really  to  bid  defiance 
to  language.  The  whole  is  real  and  literal.  And  it  is  of 
interest  to  us  because  it  reveals  more  simply  and  clearly 
than  anything  else  the  meaning  of  the  Levitical  system 
and  ritual. 

1.  The  salvation  and  blessedness  of  the  people  con- 
sists in  the  presence  of  Jehovah  in  His  temple  among 
them.  His  people,  though  all  righteous,  are  not  free  from 
the  infirmities  and  inadvertencies  incidental  to  human 
nature.  But  as,  on  the  one  hand,  the  presence  of  Jehovah 
sanctifies  the  temple  in  which  He  dwells,  the  land  which 
is  His,  the  people  whose  God  He  is ;  so,  on  the  other  hand. 


346   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

any  defilement  in  the  people,  the  land,  or  the  temple 
distnrl3S  His  holy  being,  and  must  be  sedulously  guarded 
against  or  removed.  Hence  the  elaborate  care  taken  to 
prevent  all  profaning  of  Jehovah,  and  to  keep  far  from 
Him  all  that  is  common  or  unclean.  First,  the  sacred 
oblation,  the  domain  of  the  priests  and  Levites,  is  placed 
in  the  centre  of  the  tribes.  In  the  midst  of  the  oblation 
is  the  portion  of  the  priests,  and  in  the  middle  of  the 
priests'  portion  stands  the  temple.  This  is  a  great  complex 
of  buildings,  first  surrounded  with  a  free  space,  then  by  a 
great  wall,  then  by  an  outer  court,  then  by  an  inner  court ; 
then  the  house  has  also  gradations — first  a  porch,  then  an 
outer  house,  and,  finally,  the  Most  Holy  place,  in  which 
Jehovah  is  present.  All  these  circumvallations  are  for  the 
purpose  of  protecting  the  absolute  holiness  of  His  Being ; 
they  are  not  symbols,  but  realities.  His  people,  however, 
though  forgiven  and  sanctified,  are  not  removed  from  the 
possibility  of  erring,  and  all  error  on  their  part  is  reflected 
on  the  holy  nature  of  their  God ;  and  the  uncleanness  must 
Ije  put  away  by  the  blood  of  the  sacrifices,  sin-offering  and 
burnt-offering,  which  He  has  appointed  to  atone.  Here 
we  have  the  key  to  the  strange  fact  that  it  is  only  for 
unwitting  faults  that  the  sacrifices  are  provided.  These 
are  the  only  faults  of  which  the  redeemed  and  restored 
people  will  be  guilty.  Yet  even  these  inadvertencies  are 
uncleannesses  which  disturb  the  perfect  holiness  of  God 
in  the  midst  of  them,  and  must  be  atoned  or  invalidated, 
that  Jehovah  may  continue  present  among  them. 

The  idea  in  Ezekiel  and  that  in  the  law  are  identical. 
Only  in  Ezekiel  the  situation  is  real ;  in  the  law  it  is 
somewhat  ideal.  In  the  prophet  the  restored  people  are 
holy,  led  by  the  Spirit  of  God ;  and  the  sins  they  commit 
are  only  inadvertencies,  for  which  the  ritual  sin-offerings 
are  provided  as  atonement.  In  the  law  this  ideal  condition 
is  assumed,  so  to  speak,  imposed  upon  the  people,  and 
set  before  them  as  something  to  be  striven  after.  The 
people  are  regarded  as  holy  ;  the  same  inadvertent  sins  only 
are  supposed  to  be  committed,  and  the  same  atonements 


THE    ESTHETIC    NATURE    OF   JEHOVAH  847 

are  provided  for  them,  and  the  same  care  is  manifested  to 
preserve  the  lioliness  of  Jehovah  from  all  invasion  or 
disturbance.  Ou  this  subject  the  following  points  suggest 
themselves : — 

1.  The  law  knows  nothing  of  ceremonies.  Both  the 
law  and  Ezekiel  embrace  all  that  Jehovah  is  under  the 
conception  of  holiness.  The  extra-ritual  Scriptures  speak 
mainly  of  Jehovah's  righteousness.  He  is  a  Ruler,  a  King, 
and  Judge.  When  He  deals  with  the  sin  of  men,  it  is 
judicially.  The  law  and  Ezekiel  do  not  name  Jehovah's 
righteousness.  They  speak  of  His  holiness.  But  '  holi- 
ness '  in  these  books  embraces  all  that  Jehovah  is.  His 
attributes  of  righteousness  and  powder,  His  majesty  and  the 
like,  are  all  embraced  undei  His  holiness.  These  are  two 
distinct  modes  of  conception  in  regard  to  God. 

But  tliis  is  worth  notice.  Besides  those  attributes  of 
Jehovah  called  moral  which  are  embraced  under  holiness, 
certain  otlier  things  are  also  brought  under  that  idea — 
certain  other  things  in  Jehovah.  Holiness  has  a  certain 
respect  to  the  nature  of  Jehovah,  to  what  might  be  called 
His  ii'sthetic  nature — to  feelings  and  sensibilities  in  regard 
to  tliat  which  in  our  view  is  not  moral. 

To  men's  minds,  besides  the  things  that  are  considered 
wrong,  there  are  many  things,  ol)jects  or  conditions  or 
actions  that  are  disagreeable,  which  are  either  repulsive, 
or  from  which  they  shrink,  or  which  cause  a  revulsion  in 
the  feeling.  There  are  many  natural  actions  in  regard  to 
which  civilized  men  have  a  feeling  which  prevents  them 
doing  them  in  public.  There  are  diseases,  and  even  condi- 
tions of  the  body,  from  which  the  feeling  shrinks ;  and 
there  are  objects,  such  as  some  of  the  lower  creatures,  and 
especially,  perhaps,  the  body  in  death,  wliich  cause  a  recoil 
of  feeling.  These  things  affect  our  nature,  not  at  all  our 
moral  judgment. 

Now,  the  peculiarity  of  the  law  is  that  it  has  attributed 
tliis  class  of  feelings  to  the  Divine  nature.  The  objects 
or  conditions  or  actions  referred  to  affect  tlie  Divine  nature 
as  they  do  human  nature — they  are  obnoxious  to  it,  they 


348        THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

disturb  and  offend  the  Divine  holiness.  Tlierefore,  when 
any  of  these  things  occur  in  His  people,  or  are  done  by 
them,  they  act  upon  the  holy  nature  of  Him  who  is  their 
God,  and  with  whom  as  His  people  they  are  in  fellowsliip, 
and  who  dwells  among  them.  As  it  is  said,  Lev.  xx.  24,  2G  : 
"  I  am  the  Lord  your  God,  wliich  liave  separated  you  from 
the  peoples.  Ye  shall  therefore  separate  between  the  clean 
beast  and  the  unclean.  ...  Ye  shall  not  make  yourselves 
abominable  by  beast  or  fowl  .  .  .  which  I  have  separated 
from  you  as  unclean.  But  ye  shall  be  holy  unto  Me  :  for  I 
the  Lord  am  holy."  An  extreme  instance  of  the  Divine 
sensitiveness  or  holiness  is  the  regulation  regarding  the 
priests'  clothing  when  ministering  in  the  inner  court. 
They  were  prohibited  from  wearing  anything  woollen,  on 
the  ground  that  it  caused  sweat  (Ezek.  xliv.  18). 

It  is  manifest  that  the  conception  that  Jehovah  was 
locally  present  among  the  people,  in  a  house  or  tabernacle 
in  the  midst  of  them,  would  facihtate  this  tendency  to 
draw  in  under  His  holiness  those  aesthetic  feelings  which 
refined  men  share.  It  was  His  presence  that  sanctified 
or  made  holy  that  whicli  was  locally  near  Him ;  for 
example,  the  tabernacle  or  temple,  making  it  a  holy  place, 
making  Zion  also  a  holy  hill,  Israel  a  holy  nation,  and 
Canaan  a  holy  land.  And  so,  on  the  other  hand,  when 
anything  unclean  came  into  His  house  or  land,  it  defiled 
it,  and  when  it  came  near  Himself  it  profaned  Him — it 
touched  on  His  nature,  which  reacted  against  it. 

Entirely  parallel  to  the  conception  of  the  Divine  holi- 
ness, embracing  in  it  what  we  call  the  sesthetic,  was  the 
conception  of  all  sin  as  uncleanness.  All  sins,  moral  as  we 
name  them,  and  others  which  we  call  ceremonial,  are 
named  uncleanness  in  the  law  and  in  Ezekiel.  For 
example,  those  several  enormities  enumerated  in  Lev.  xviii. 
In  regard  to  them  it  is  said.  Lev.  xviii.  26-28  :  "  Ye  shall 
keep  My  statutes,  and  shall  not  do  any  of  these  abomina- 
tions :  that  the  land  vomit  you  not  out  also,  when  ye 
defile  it."  And  so  the  idolatries  are  uncleannesses.  And 
so  with  other  things  similar :  "  Turn  not  unto  them  that 


SIN    AS    DEFILEMENT  349 

have  familiar  s[)irits,  nor  unto  wizards :  seek  tliem  not  out, 
to  bo  detilod  by  ihcni :  1  am  Johovali  your  God"  (Lev. 
xix.  31).  And,  of  course,  all  those  other  conditions  or 
actions  to  which  reference  has  been  made  are  called 
uncleaunesses.  But  our  modern  distinction  of  ceremonial 
and  moral  is  not  one  known  to  the  law.  Equally  un- 
known to  it  is  the  idea  that  the  Levitical  purifications 
and  ritual  offerings  were  symbolical — operations  performed 
merely  to  suggest  the  ideas  of  moral  purity  in  God  and 
the  necessity  for  it  for  men.  On  the  contrary,  the  Levitical 
defilements  were  real ;  they  were  offences  to  the  absolute 
purity  of  the  Divine  nature.  And  the  Levitical  purifi- 
cations were  equally  real — the  washings  removed  the  un- 
cleanness  if  of  a  lesser  kind,  and  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice 
atoned  for  it  if  it  was  of  a  more  serious  nature.  It  is  just 
those  defilements,  such  as  that  arising  from  touching  the 
dead,  that  are  called  sins,  and  the  offering  to  atone  for 
them  is  called  the  sin-offering.  An  instructive  instance 
is  that  of  the  Nazirite,  Num.  vi.  2-12:  "When  either 
man  or  woman  shall  make  a  special  vow,  the  vow  of  a 
Nazirite,  to  separate  himself  unto  the  Lord  ...  all  the 
days  of  his  separation  he  is  holy  unto  the  Lord  .  .  .  he 
shall  not  come  near  to  a  dead  body.  And  if  any  man 
die  very  suddenly  beside  him  ...  he  shall  bring  two 
turtle-doves  to  the  priest,  and  the  priest  shall  offer  one 
for  a  sin-offering  .  .  .  and  make  atonement  for  him,  for 
that  he  sinned  by  reason  of  the  dead." 

Now,  with  regard  to  this  ritual  atonement,  it  is  dis- 
tinguished in  several  ways  from  the  atonement  previously 
referred  to. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  there  are  stated  and  regular  means 
appointed  for  it.  It  is  not  left  to  the  compassion  of  God, 
or  the  intercession  of  men,  or  Jehovah's  consideration  for 
His  name's  sake.  The  stated  means  are  the  sacrifice,  and 
specially  the  blood  of  the  sacrifice. 

2.  The  person  who  atones  in  this  case,  as  has  been 
already  stated,  is  no  more  God  Himself,  but  the  priest ;  or, 
when  the  atonement  is  made  for  the   whole   people,   the 


350   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

liigli  priest.  Tlie  priest,  of  course,  is  appointed  of  God. 
IJut  the  procedure  in  the  atonement  is  now  sometliing 
ordinary ;  both  the  means  to  it  and  the  persons  accom- 
pHshing  it  are  fixed  ordinances. 

3.  A  certain  difference  of  phraseology  also  appears. 
In  the  extra-ritual  atonements,  that  which  was  atoned  or 
covered  was  the  sin.  In  the  ritual  atonements,  that  which 
is  atoned  or  covered  is  the  persons  or  souls  of  the  offenders ; 
or  it  may  be,  for  even  things  are  atoned  for  in  the  ritual, 
the  altar  or  the  sanctuary  in  which  Jehovah  is  present. 
The  difference  of  construction  is  perhaps  not  of  great  im- 
portance, being  due  to  the  different  conception  entertained 
of  sin  in  the  ritual  law.  In  the  extra-ritual  Scriptures 
sin  is  conceived  as  an  offence  which  the  sinner  is  guilty  of. 
The  offence  is  seen  by  the  eye  of  the  righteous  God,  the 
Judge  and  Euler.  It  incurs  His  anger,  and  draws  forth 
penalty.  But  the  sin  is  not  considered  as  adhering  to  the 
sinner ;  hence,  when  it  is  atoned  it  is  covered  and  done 
away.  But  in  the  ritual  atonements  sin  is  regarded  as  an 
uncleanness,  and  this  necessarily  adheres  either  to  a  person 
or  a  thing.  Hence,  when  atonement  is  made,  the  person  is 
covered,  or,  as  the  case  may  be,  the  thing — the  altar  or 
the  dwelling-place  which  contracts  defilement  from  the 
presence  of  the  people. 

Here  two  questions  arise — first,  what  is  the  idea  of 
atonement  in  the  ritual  ?  and,  secondly,  what  is  the  prin- 
ciple ?  As  to  the  idea,  it  seems  still,  as  in  the  extra- 
ritual,  that  of  covering,  putting  out  of  sight,  or  doing  away 
with  the  uncleanness.  The  use  of  the  word  atone  p??)  is 
still  figurative.  There  are  other  terms,  however,  which 
have  less  of  figure  in  them.     These  are : 

^<t^^  to  un-sin      1 

inp  to  cleanse     V  =  i23  atone. 

ti'"i|P  to  sanctify  J 

The  fact  is,  that  the  sacrifice  or  blood  removes  the  sin, 
or  cleanses,  or  sanctifies;  the  figure  is,  that  it  covers  the  sin 
or  uncleanness,  and  so  removes  it  from  the  sight  of  God, 


RITSCHL    AND    RIEHM    ON    ATONEMENT  351 

or  obviates  all  eirects  of  it.  There  is  an  element  of  the 
ideal  still  in  the  operation.  Wlien  the  altar  or  sanctuary 
is  atoned  for,  the  blood  is  literally  applied  to  them,  so  that 
the  uncleanness  adhering  to  them  is  literally  covered.  But 
when  persons  are  atoned  for,  the  blood  is  not  usually 
applied  to  them,  it  is  merely  brought  before  the  sight  of 
God,  being  applied  to  His  altar.  Sometimes,  however,  as 
in  the  consecration  of  the  high  priest,  it  is  applied  to  the 
person ;  and  when  applied  to  the  sanctuary,  there  is  the 
idea  that  the  uncleanness  of  the  people  cleaves  to  the 
sanctuary.  Hence,  on  the  day  of  atonement,  the  sacri- 
fices for  the  people  are  regarded  as  cleansing  the  sanctuary 
as  well  as  the  people ;  the  things  are  identical. 

Eitschl  has  argued  that  the  ritual  atonement  moves 
entirely  in  the  region  of  nature,  in  the  sphere  of  that  which 
man  and  God  are,  so  to  speak,  physically ;  that  man  needs 
to  be  covered  by  the  blood  of  sacrifice  when  approaching 
God,  because  of  what  he  is  as  a  finite  creature  in  the  pre- 
sence of  the  natural  majesty  of  God.  But  the  terminology 
appears  to  be  against  this,  which  speaks  of  specific  acts  of 
uncleanness,  and  calls  them  sins.  Eiehm,  in  his  valuable 
book  on  Old  Testament  Theology,  and  in  his  Essay  on  Atone- 
ment, argues  against  this  transference  of  the  operation  of 
atonement  into  the  mere  physical  or  natural  region  ;  but 
agrees  with  Eitschl  to  this  extent,  that  the  necessity  for 
atonement,  for  the  covering  of  the  sinner's  uncleanness  by 
l)lood,  lies  in  the  danger  to  the  sinner  from  the  holiness 
of  God,  which  would  react  against  the  sinner's  unclean- 
ness if  he  approached  uncovered  by  blood,  and  destroy  the 
sinner.^  That  is,  the  covering  of  the  sinner  is  regarded  as 
a  2^f'otection  of  him  against  the  reaction  of  tlie  Divine  holi- 
ness, which  would  destroy  him.  But  this  idea,  that  the 
necessity  for  covering  by  blood  lies  in  tlie  danger  to  tlie 
sinner  from  the  reaction  of  the  Divine  holiness  ai^ainst  him 

^  See  the  discussion  ill  Ritsclil's  Die  christliche  Lehrevonder  Rtxhffcrtviung 
tind  der  Versohnung,  vol.  ii.  ;  Hofniann's  Schrifthcivcis,  ii.  191  ft'.  ;  Weiss's 
Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  Clark's  tr.,  i.  419  ff.,  and  ii.  220  ti". ; 
etc. — Ed. 


352   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

in  liis  luicleanDCSS,  appears  to  have  no  support  in  tlio 
lanOTatje  of  the  ritual.  It  is  nowliere  intimated  that 
there  is  any  danger  to  the  sinner  because  of  his  un- 
cleanness.  If  lie  neglects  the  appointed  means  of  purifica- 
tion, he  is  threatened  with  hcinj  cut  off\  but  this  is  because 
of  his  disobedience  to  the  ordinance  of  God,  not  because 
of  liis  uncleanness.  The  idea  appears  to  be  rather  that 
tlie  uncleanness  or  sin  of  the  individual  or  people  is  in- 
compatible with  their  being  the  people  of  God.  It  dis- 
turbs the  holiness  of  God,  who  is  their  God,  and  abides 
among  them.  It  makes  His  fellowship  with  them  impos- 
sible ;  if  not  removed,  it  would  make  His  abode  among 
them  as  their  God  no  more  possible,  and  lead,  as  it  did  of 
old,  to  His  withdrawal.  The  explanation  lies  in  the  words, 
"  Be  ye  holy :  for  I  am  holy  "  (Lev.  xx.  7  V 

7.   The  Principle  of  Atonement 

Finally,  as  to  the  principle  of  atonement  by  the  sacrifice 
or  the  blood  of  sacrifice,  this,  I  fear,  must  remain  obscure. 
The  law  appears  nowhere  to  give  any  rationale  or  explana- 
tion of  the  ordinance  that  blood  atones  or  covers  the  sin  or 
defilement.  The  passage  in  Lev.  xvii.  11  comes  nearest  an 
explanation,  though  without  supplying  it.  "  The  life  of  the 
flesh  is  in  the  blood,  and  I  have  given  it  to  you  upon  the 
altar  to  make  an  atonement  for  your  souls ;  for  the  blood 
atones  in  virtue  of  the  life."  The  law  here  is  not  occupied 
immediately  with  the  question  of  atonement ;  it  is  a  law 
against  eating  of  blood.  Eating  of  blood  is  prohibited, 
because  the  life  is  in  the  blood,  and  the  blood  has  been 

^  In  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  where  the  same  idea  prevails,  there  seems 
no  alhision  to  any  obstacle  to  the  sinner's  drawing  near  to  God  on  the  part 
of  God,  the  obstacle  lies  exclusively  in  the  conscience  of  sin  on  the  sinner's 
part ;  and  it  is  when  his  conscience  is  purified  from  dead  works  that  he  can 
serve  the  living  God.  Pre-Christian  sin  is  ignorance.  And  another  New 
Testament  writer  seems  to  touch  on  the  same  idea — "tlie  times  of  this 
ignorance  God  winked  at,  l)ut  now  commandeth  all  men  everywhere  to 
repent"  (Acts  xvii.  30). 

And  even  our  Lord  Himself  says  :  "  If  1  had  not  come  and  spoken  unto 
them,  they  had  not  had  sin"  (John  xv.  22). 


THE   OFFERINCx    OF   THE    BLOOD  353 

given  to  niakc  atoncinout ;  and  tliis  atoiieiiiont  the  l)lood 
olTects  in  virtue  of  its  being  tlie  life.  We  must  l)c  on  our 
liuard  a^ain  aiiainst  fancvini>-  tliat  we  iiave  syniholisni  here. 
Tliere  is  no  syniliolisni,  but  reality.  The  ])lo()d  is  not  a 
symbol  of  tlie  life,  it  is  tlie  life,  or  contains  it.  The  oifcring 
of  the  blood  to  God  is  the  actual  offering  of  the  life.  The 
slaying  of  the  victim  and  the  offering  of  the  blood  are  not 
two  separate  acts.  They  are  one  act,  wliich  consists  in 
offering  the  life  or  victim  to  God.  The  death  is  not  to  be 
regarded  as  a  mere  means  of  getting  the  blood ;  the  d(^ath 
and  the  offering  are  the  giving  to  God  of  the  life  of  the 
victim.  But  while  stating  the  fact  that  the  life  thus 
given  atones,  the  ritual  law  offers  no  explanation.  The 
traditional  explanation  has  been  that  the  death  of  the 
victim  was  a  'poena  vicaria  for  the  sin  of  the  offerer.  And 
it  is  probable  that  this  idea  did  become  attached  to  sacrifice. 
It  is  questionable,  however,  when  other  things  are  considered, 
if  it  be  found  in  the  law.  When  we  consider  such  things 
as  these  :  first,  the  fact  that  whatever  older  or  more  primary 
ideas  of  sacrifice  may  have  been,  in  the  Old  Testament  at 
least  sacrifice  is  of  the  nature  of  a  gift  to  God ;  secondly, 
that  the  kind  of  offences  for  which  sacrifices  made  atone- 
ment were  sins  of  inadvertency,  in  regard  to  which  there 
does  not  seem  evidence  that  they  awakened  the  wrath  of 
God,  although,  notwithstanding  that  they  were  done  un- 
wittingly, they  disturbed  His  holiness  and  endangered  His 
fellowship  with  His  people  and  His  abode  among  them  ;  and, 
thirdly,  tliat  these  sacrifices  were  offered  in  the  main  for  a 
people  in  His  covenant  fellowship,  for  those  already  His 
worshipping  people,  and  that  the  propliet  Ezekiel  regards 
these  atoning  offerings  as  necessary,  and  as  continuing  even 
in  the  final  condition  of  the  people,  after  their  forgiveness 
and  final  restoration,  and  when  they  are  all  led  by  God's 
Spirit, — when  these  and  other  things  are  considered,  it 
does  not  appear  probable  that  the  death  of  the  victim  was 
regarded  by  the  law  as  a  penalty,  death  Ijeing  the  highest 
possiljle  penalty. 

On  the  other  Iiand,  though   tlie  sacrifices  were  of  the 
23 


354        THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD   TESTAMENT 

nature  of  a  gift,  in  this  case  tlie  use  of  the  blood  in  virtue 
of  the  life  for  atonement  is  an  express  appointment  of 
God.  And  it  is  said  that  the  blood  in  virtue  of  the  life 
atones  for  the  souls  or  lives  of  men.  It  is  possible  that  tlie 
compilers  of  the  ritual  law  satisfied  themselves  with  just 
enunciating  this  fact,  refraining  from  stating  any  principle, 
or  assuming  that  the  principle  was  known.  The  ritual 
law  is  the  culmination  of  a  multitude  of  ritual  practices 
and  probably  ritual  conceptions,  and  the  compilers  have 
satisfied  themselves  with  legalising  the  practices  without 
condescendence  on  the  principles.  The  view  of  Eiehm, 
that  the  blood  atones  simply  because  it  is  God's  appointment 
or  ordinance ;  and  that  if  the  question  be  put  why  He 
appointed  blood,  there  was  no  reason  for  His  appointment 
beyond  this,  that  there  is  a  certain  congruity  in  life 
being  appointed  for  life, — the  nephesh  of  the  creature 
for  the  nej^hesh  of  men, — is  not  altogether  satisfactory. 
It  may  be  assumed  that  the  grounds  for  the  Divine 
appointment  are  deeper  than  this ;  but  so  far  as  the  Old 
Testament  is  concerned  they  are  not  distinctly  revealed. 
At  all  times  the  blood  was  sacrosanct.  Life  belonged  to 
God,  and  must  in  all  cases  be  given  back  to  Him,  and  not 
used  by  men  as  flesh  might  be.  It  is  probable  that  deeper 
and  mystical  ideas  gathered  around  the  blood,  and  that 
men,  if  they  did  not  see  more  in  the  offering  of  the  life 
for  atonement  of  sin  than  a  mere  ordinance  of  God,  felt 
there  was  more  in  it ;  that  there  lay  grounds  under  the 
ordinance  which  they  might  not  see.  Meantime  the  law 
has  contented  itself  with  stating  the  fact  that  the  offering 
of  a  life  to  God  atones.  Subsequent  revelation  may  go 
further. 

But  thus  in  the  Old  Testament  there  are  two  lines  on 
which  atonement  moves  :  that  of  the  rigliteousness  of  God 
in  the  extra-ritual  Scriptures ;  and  that  of  the  holiness  of 
God  in  the  ritual  law.  In  the  former,  He  deals  with  sin- 
as  the  rigliteous  Kulor  and  Judge  of  men.  In  the  latter. 
He  deals  with  it  as  a  lioly  person  witli  whom  men  have 
fellowship,  who  draw  near  to  Him,  and  among  whom  He 


WESTCOTTS   VIEW   OF   SACRIFICE  355 

graciously  abides.  But  there  is  one  otlier  Old  Testament 
passage  which  may  give  additional  liglit  (Isa.  liii.). 

Although  the  form  in  which  the  sacrifice  is  put  in  the 
law  be  that  it  is  tlie  giving  of  the  life  of  a  creature  to  God, 
naturally  the  otlier  side  of  such  a  transaction,  when  the 
case  of  the  creature  is  concerned,  is  that  it  is  the  death  of 
the  creature.  In  earlier  times,  perhaps,  the  former  side 
of  the  idea  was  more  prominent  —  the  idea  of  a  gift  to 
l)lacate  God ;  in  later  times  the  other  side,  tliat  the  death  of 
the  creature  was  of  the  nature  of  penalty,  by  the  exaction 
of  which  the  righteousness  of  Jehovah  was  satisfied.  This 
idea  seems  certainly  expressed  in  Isa.  liii. ;  at  least  these 
two  ])oints  appear  to  be  stated  there,  that  the  sins  of  the 
peo])le,  i.e.  the  penalties  for  them,  were  laid  on  the  Servant 
and  borne  by  him  ;  and,  secondly,  that  thus  the  people  were 
relieved  from  the  penalty,  and  their  sins  being  borne,  were 
forgiven. 

New  Testament  scholars  seem  as  nnich  perplexed  in 
seeking  to  discover  the  principle  of  atonement  in  the  New 
Testament  as  we  are  in  the  Old.  There  is  one  passage 
m  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  (x.  1—10)  which  has  been 
mterpreted  by  New  Testament  scholars,  such  as  Bishop 
VYestcott,  and  indeed  most,  in  a  way  which  is  very  doubtful. 
The  passage  runs  thus :  "  For  it  is  not  possible  that  the 
blood  of  bulls  and  of  goats  should  take  away  sins.  Where- 
fore when  He  {i.e.  Jesus)  comefch  into  the  world  Pie  saith. 
Sacrifice  and  offering  Thou  wouldest  not,  but  a  body  hast 
Thou  prepared  Me.  In  burnt-offerings  and  sacrifices  for  sin 
Thou  hadst  no  pleasure.  Then  said  I,  Lo,  I  am  come  .  .  . 
to  do  Thy  will,  0  God.  Above  when  He  said,  Sacrifice  and 
o tiering  .  .  .  Thou  wouldest  not  .  .  .  (which  are  offered  by 
the  law),  then  said  He,  Lo,  I  am  come  to  do  Thy  will,  0 
God.  He  taketh  away  the  first  that  He  may  establish 
the  second."  Now  the  general  interpretation  of  this 
passage  is  that  it  substitutes  for  the  mere  material  sacri- 
fices of  the  Old  Testament  an  ethical  service,  obedience 
U)  tlie  will  of  God.  But  this,  I  think, — though  it  may  be 
the  meaning  of  the  I^salm  tjuoted  (Bs.  xl.),   as  it  is  the 


356   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

doctrine  of  the  prophets, — is  obviously  not  the  meaning  of 
the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  author's 
argument  is  that  Christ  having  done  what  was  declared  in 
Scripture  to  be  God's  final  will  in  regard  to  sacrifice,  His 
sacrifice  is  final.  "  By  one  offering  He  hath  perfected  for 
ever  them  that  are  sanctified."  It  is  not  the  general  will 
of  God  that  he  refers  to,  but  His  particular  specific  will 
that  Christ  should  offer  His  body.  What  are  contrasted 
are  not  two  disparate  things,  namely,  the  material  sacrifices 
offered  according  to  the  law  and  the  moral  sacrifice  of 
obedience ;  but  two  things  of  the  same  kind  or  class, 
namely,  Old  Testament  sacrifices,  the  blood  of  bulls  and 
goats,  and  the  offering  of  the  body  of  Christ  once  for  all — 
the  blood  of  Christ.  For  it  is  said,  "  Sacrifice  and  offering, 
i.e.  the  legal  offerings,  thou  wouldest  not,  but  a  body  hast 
Thou  prepared  Me."  He  willed  not  sacrifices,  and  He 
willed  the  offering  of  the  body  of  Christ ;  "  by,  or  in, 
which  ivill  we  have  been  sanctified  through  the  offering  of 
the  body  of  Christ  once  for  all."  The  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  merely  throws  the  New  Testament  sacrifice  into 
the  mould  of  the  Old  Testament,  but  furnishes  no  principle  : 
"  If  the  blood  of  bulls  and  the  ashes  of  an  heifer  sanctify  to 
the  purifying  of  the  flesh,  how  much  more  shall  the  blood  of 
Christ  purify  your  conscience  from  dead  works  to  serve  the 
living  God  ? "  It  is  not  a  new  principle,  but  a  more  con- 
clusive application  of  the  old  principle.  The  death  of  Christ 
takes  away  sin  because  it  is  the  death  of  Christ} 


XL   THE  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAST  THLNGS— 
THE  MESSLANLC  IDEA. 

1.  Distinctive  Contributions  to  the  Doctrine. 

In   the  times  of   the  early  prophets  it  is  the   nation 
as   a   whole    that    occupies    the    view   of   the   prophet,  its 

^  Oil  tliis  see  more  at  length  in  the  author's  The  E^iislle  to  the  Hebrews, 

with  Intrudaction  and  Notes,  pp.  189-194. — Eu. 


THE    MESSIANIC    HOPE  :>57 

relation  to  Jcliovali,  its  a])pi'oacliing  fall ;  yet  the  iii- 
destructibleness  of  Jehovah's  kingdom,  its  rise  again  in 
the  future,  to  be  universal  and  all-enduring.  Under  this 
general  conception  of  the  future,  the  eschatology  of  the 
kingdom  of  the  Lord,  fall  those  prophecies  which  are 
called  Messianic.  And  the  Messianic  Hope  is  the  transi- 
tion to  the  Doctrme  of  the  Last  Thingjs. 

When  we  pass  from  this  early  region  and  this 
general  subject,  the  ])eo])le  or  kingdom  of  the  Lord,  we 
liave  to  consider  the  individual,  his  condition  and  destiny. 
This  raises  many  (questions  regarding,  e.g.,  human  nature 
in  the  elements  composing  it — body,  soul  and  spirit  ;  sin 
and  its  atonement ;  as  well  as  death  and  immortality — the 
eschatology  of  the  individual.  The  most  of  these  questions 
came  into  prominence  a  century  or  two  later  dcnvn  the 
liistory  than  the  period  of  the  early  prophets.  In  all  the 
earlier  prophets  the  religious  unit,  so  to  speak,  is  the 
people,  as  we  see,  e.g.,  in  Hosea.  The  individuals  occupy 
a  secondary  place,  and  share  the  fate,  disastrous  or  happy, 
of  the  people.  It  is  but  exceeding  slowly  that  in  the 
thoughts  of  the  Old  Testament  the  individual  man  acquires 
prominence  and  comes  to  the  rights  and  the  responsibilities 
assigned  to  him  in  Christianity.  It  can  readily  be  seen, 
however,  how  God's  providence  in  the  history  of  Israel 
gradually  led  to  this  result.  So  long  as  the  State,  North 
and  South,  endured,  the  unit,  the  people,  was  apt  to  be 
alone  thought  of.  But  when  the  State  fell,  first  the 
North  and  then  the  South,  this  unit  no  more  existed. 
Yet  tlie  individuals  existed,  and  their  God  existed  ;  and 
the  individual  rose  into  the  consciousness  that  all  those 
things  which  had  been  spoken  of  the  people,  its  duties  and 
relations  to  Jehovah  its  God,  had  a  reality  as  regarded 
himself,  and  meantime  had  no  other  reality.  Even 
before  the  actual  dissolution  of  the  State,  the  many 
calamities  that  befell  the  people  in  common  could  not 
but  awaken  the  individual's  consciousness,  and  lead 
him  to  a  clearer  conception  of  his  true  relations  and 
worth.      The   interpretation    put    by    the    prophets    upon 


358        THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

■jhe  people's  disastrous  history  led   men  to  retlect  and  to 
iiscriniinate. 

While  the  interpretation  that  calamity  was  due  to  the 
5ins  of  the  people,  might  be  just  when  the  people  as  a  unity 
vvas  considered,  yet  many  were  conscious  that  they  did  not 
share  in  the  sins  and  idolatries  denounced  by  the  prophets. 
Still  the  disasters  of  defeat  and  exile  fell  on  them  even 
with  a  more  crushing  weight  than  on  the  sinners  of  the 
people.  It  was  the  elite  of  the  nation,  the  best-informed, 
and  purest,  and  most  godly,  that  were  deported  from  their 
country.  They  could  not  but  say,  as  one  of  them  does : 
"Verily  I  have  cleansed  my  heart  in  vain,  and  washed 
my  hands  in  innocency.  For  all  the  day  long  have  I  been 
plagued." — "  Lo,  these  are  the  ungodly  who  prosper  in  the 
world  "  (Ps.  Ixxiii.  12-14).  Hence  arose  the  proverb,  "  The 
fathers  ate  sour  grapes,  and  the  children's  teeth  are  set  on 
edge  " ;  or,  as  it  is  expressed  in  Lam.  v.  7  :  "  Our  fathers 
sinned,  and  we  bear  their  iniquities."  It  is  in  the  two  pro- 
phets Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  who  both  lived  partly  before  and 
partly  after  the  Exile,  that  the  individual  man  fully  comes 
to  his  true  place  before  God.  Indeed,  in  the  xviiith  and 
xxxiiird  chapters  of  Ezekiel  we  may  say  that  we  see  the 
birth  of  the  individual  mind  taking  place  before  our  eyes : 
•'  All  souls  are  mine,  saith  the  Lord :  as  the  soul  of  the 
father,  so  also  the  soul  of  the  son  "  (xviii.  4).  The  prophet 
disentangles  the  individual  from  the  people  as  a  mass,  and 
even  from  his  nearest  ancestors ;  he  shall  not  be  involved 
in  the  consequences  of  their  sins :  "  The  soul  that  sinneth, 
it  shall  die."  But  the  prophet  goes  much  further  than 
this,  and  asserts  for  the  individual  a  moral  freedom,  in 
virtue  of  which  he  can  break  with  his  own  past  and  de- 
liver himself  from  its  consequences.  He  is  not  under  the 
han  of  the  past.  There  is  an  ego,  an  /  in  man,  possessed  of 
moral  freedom,  which  can  rise  above  even  that  which  may 
be  called  nature  in  him,  and  not  only  break  with  it,  but 
take  the  rule  of  it,  and  shake  off  its  moral  shackles,  and,  in 
the  favour  of  God,  redeem  himself  from  its  consequences. 
Perhaps  there  are  hardly  any  more  important  passages  in 


PROBLEMS   OF   THE   INDIVIDUAL   LIFE  359 

the  Old  Testament  tlian  these  two  rh;i})tor.s  of  Ezekiel. 
Tlie  roHgious  unit,  so  to  s])cak,  that  siil)j'o(*t  l)etwcen  wlncli 
and  God  i'eligit)n  is  the  bond  and  in  whicli  religious  experi- 
ences take  place,  is  the  individual  mind. 

The  period  between  the  earlier  prophets  and  those  of 
later  time,  wlien  problems  of  the  individual  life  fill  the 
minds  of  Scripture  writers,  such  as  the  author  of  Job,  for 
instance,  and  the  authors  of  many  of  the  Psalms, — tliis  long 
period  is  of  the  greatest  importance.  There  belong  to  it 
some,  we  may  almost  say  most,  of  the  profoundest  parts 
of  the  Old  Testament ;  those  parts,  indeed,  mrdiy  of  which 
have  come  nearest  Christianity.  Examples  are  the  Book  of 
Deuteronomy,  with  the  revolution  which  its  discovery  and 
promulgation  occasioned ;  the  prophecies  of  Jeremiali,  in  a 
moral  and  personal  aspect — perhaps  because  he  analyses 
himself  and  dissects  his  own  mind  and  experience  to  us — 
the  most  Christian  of  the  prophets  ;  the  Book  of  Ezekiel,  on 
whom  modern  writers  pass  a  very  slighting,  but  probably 
not  very  profound  judgment ;  who,  at  any  rate,  is  not  without 
his  part  in  leading  on  the  people  of  God  towards  great 
New  Testament  truths ;  the  exquisite  little  collection  of 
elegies,  called  the  Lamentations,  written  shortly  after  the 
fall  of  the  city,  and  reflecting  the  condition  of  the  people's 
mind  after  this  event.  These  poems  exhibit  to  us  the 
mind  of  religious  men  stunned  by  the  magnitude  of  the 
blow,  especially  by  the  reflection  that  it  was  Jehovah  their 
God  who  had  inflicted  it.  Then  they  show  us  the  profound 
sense  of  sin  awakened  in  men's  minds  by  these  reflections ; 
and  no  doubt  it  was  just  the  people's  history  as  a  whole, 
under  the  interpretation  of  it  by  the  prophets,  that  more 
than  anything  else  deepened  the  sense  of  sin  in  the 
nation's  heart.  And,  finally,  they  show  us  the  inextinguish- 
able faith  in  Jehovah,  the  Saviour  of  His  people,  a  light 
which  the  darkness,  however  deep,  could  not  swallow  up. 
We  may  refer  specially  to  the  3rd  chapter  of  the 
Lamentations,  perhaps  the  most  singular  piece  of  reflective 
meditation  and  weighing  of  considerations  for  and  against 
the  hope  of  God's  mercy,  which  the  Old  Testament  contains. 


360   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

And,  finally,  there  is  the  prophet  of  the  second  half  of 
Lsaiah, — who  toiiclies  prohlcms  of  sin  and  forgiveness  more 
profoundly  than  any  of  his  predecessors. 

Many  difficult  questions  are  raised  by  Deuteronomy 
which  we  cannot  discuss  here.  Perhaps  a  careful  reader 
of  it  will  feel  inclined  to  come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is 
the  reflection  of  the  teaching  of  the  three  earliest  prophets 
of  Israel,  Amos,  Hosea,  and  Lsaiah,  particularly  of  the 
last  two ;  for  if  a  distinction  can  be  drawn  between  the  two 
things,  it  is  more  distinctively  religious  than  moral.  It  will 
certainly  be  ])est  understood  when  read  after  Hosea  and 
Isaiah.  This,  at  any  rate,  is  its  historical  position,  so  far  as 
it  influenced  and  modified  religious  life  among  the  people. 
Its  teaching  might  be  somewhat  generally  summed  up  in 
four  points:  1.  Jehovah,  Israel's  God,  is  one  Jehovah,  who 
cannot  be  represented  in  any  form.  The  right  disposition 
men  show  towards  Him  is  love,  and  love  is  His  disposition 
towards  His  people  :  "  Hear,  0  Israel :  Jehovah  our  God  is 
one  Jehovah :  and  thou  shalt  love  Jehovah  thy  God  with 
all  thine  heart "  (vi.  4).  "  And  Jehovah  chose  them 
because  He  loved  them"  (iv.  37).  2.  The  humanity  which 
is  everywhere  inculcated  in  the  book.  It  is  not  necessary  to 
dwell  on  this.  How  often  the  widow,  and  the  orphan,  and 
the  stranger  are  commended  to  the  consideration  of  the 
people,  because  they  were  themselves  once  strangers  in 
Egypt !  How  the  gleanings  of  field  and  vineyard,  the 
sheaf  forgotten  in  the  field,  and  the  seventh  year's  crop 
are  to  be  left  them  that  they  may  be  well  and  rejoice 
before  the  Lord !  This  spirit  of  benevolence  and  goodwill 
extends  even  to  the  nations,  as,  e.g.,  to  Egypt.  One  can  hardly 
fail  to  see  the  teaching  of  Hosea  reflected  in  both  these 
points.  3.  The  holiness  of  Jehovah  is  greatly  emphasised, 
and  the  necessity  that  His  people  should  be  holy.  And 
here  the  doctrines  of  Isaiah  are  probably  reflected.  But 
an  effort  is  made  to  bring  the  prophet's  ideal  hopes  as  to 
the  future  into  the  present.  In  the  picture  which  he 
draws  of  the  final  condition  of  Jerusalem,  every  one  that  is 
left  shall  be  called  'holy.'      Deuteronomy  seeks  to  realise 


THE    BOOK    OF    DEUTERONOMY  361 

this  great  ideal  in  the  ]uc.seiit  life  of  the  ])enple.  Under 
this  general  idea  fall  all  the  prescrijdioiis  regarding  clean- 
ness, and  purifications,  and  the  Uke.  It  is  tliis  conception 
that  gives  unity  to  these  laws,  and  enables  us  to  understand 
them.  And  to  this  head  belong  all  those  denunciations  of 
tlie  impurities  of  the  Canaanites,  and  the  overwhelming 
moral  earnestness  of  the  w^arnings  against  having  part  in 
them,  and  the  terrible  threatenings  against  practising  the 
religious  rites  or  customs  of  these  peoples.  4.  And,  finally, 
as  the  corollary  of  this  law  of  holiness  and  the  unity  of 
Jehovah  their  God,  and  as  the  necessary  means  of  realising 
this  holiness,  there  is  the  law  of  the  one  altar  where 
sacrifice  to  Jehovah  is  to  be  offered,  that  at  Jerusalem. 
This  is  by  no  means,  as  is  often  represented,  the  chief 
burden  of  Deuteronomy.  It  is  the  least  part  of  it,  and 
only  a  consequence  of  other  doctrines. 

As  the  book  is  all  spoken  by  Moses,  the  way  in  which 
the  law  is  represented  is  this.  It  is  not  a  law  that  is  to 
come  into  effect  on  their  entry  into  Canaan  ;  it  is  to  be 
observed  from  the  time  that  Jehovah  shall  have  given 
them  rest  from  all  their  enemies  round  about ;  that  is, 
from  the  times  of  David,  or,  more  particularly,  Solomon ; 
for  only  when  the  temple  was  built  did  that  place 
become  known  which  Jehovah  had  chosen  to  place  His 
name  there.  The  main  idea  of  the  book  is  the  holiness 
of  Jehovah  and  the  necessary  holiness  of  His  people. 
To  *  sanctify '  Jehovah  is  to  recognise  Him  to  be  the 
(Jod  that  He  is ;  God  alone,  spiritual,  and  above  all 
ethical.  To  *  sanctify '  Him  in  thought  is  to  recognise 
this ;  in  act,  it  is  to  live  as  the  people  of  such  a  God  should 
do — to  be  like  Him.  The  opposite  of  to  '  sanctify '  is  to 
'  profane ' ;  and  the  people  profane  His  name  when,  being 
His  people,  they  engage  in  the  impure  worsliip  of  the 
Canaanites,  or  serve  Jehovah  in  a  false  way,  as  under 
visible  forms ;  and  when,  being  His  people,  they  practise 
tiie  moral  impurities  of  the  nations  about  them.  It  is 
])roba))le  that  'holy'  in  Isaiah  is  mainly  a  moral  idea,  but 
in  Deuteronomy  and  the  law  it  is  extended  over  a  multitude 


362   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

of  outward  conditions ;  and  ideas  such  as  clean  and  unclean, 
perfect  and  imperfect  physically,  are  drawn  very  largely 
into  it.  This  great  ideal  of  '  holiness '  was  set  before  the 
people ;  and  they  were  taught  by  a  multitude  of  prescrip- 
tions to  seek  to  realise  it. 

Jeremiah  had  already  been  five  years  a  prophet  when 
Deuteronomy  was  made  public  law  in  621.  He  does  not 
appear  to  have  had  any  hand  in  the  promulgation  of  the 
law  ;  nor  in  Josiah's  reformation,  which  abolished  all  the  rural 
high  places  of  sacrifice,  and  confined  the  ritual  worship  of 
Jehovah  to  the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  It  is  probable  that 
he  saw  this  reform  with  satisfaction,  but  probably  cherished 
few  illusions  in  regard  to  it.  It  was  good  in  its  way,  but 
it  was  not  the  good  w^hich  he  and  men  like  him  desired  to 
see  and  required.  The  prophets  were  men  never  satisfied. 
When  a  reform  was  effected  they  accepted  it,  but  always 
went  further.  Jeremiah  soon  had  reason  to  see  the  effects  of 
Josiah's  reformation  to  be  anything  but  good  in  all  respects. 
The  temple  of  the  Lord,  where  worship  was  alone  carried 
on,  became  to  men's  minds  a  kind  of  fetish  :  "  the  temple  of 
the  Lord,  the  temple  of  the  Lord,  are  these  "  (Jer.  vii.  4).  The 
people  thought  it  indestructible.  And  they  thought  their 
service  of  Jehovah  at  one  place,  as  He  had  commanded, 
condoned  all  other  offences  and  sins.  "  Will  ye  steal, 
murder,  and  commit  adultery,  and  walk  after  other  gods ; 
and  come  and  stand  before  Me  in  this  house,  and  say.  We 
are  delivered  ? "  (vii.  9).  "  Is  this  house  that  is  called 
by  My  name  a  cave  of  robbers,"  where,  after  committing 
their  depredations,  they  find  refuge  and  think  themselves 
safe? 

It  is  indeed  an  interesting  position  that  is  occupied 
here  by  Jeremiah.  That  prophet's  relation  to  the  people 
and  to  Jehovah  made  him  continually  tossed  between 
the  two,  and  neither  listened  to  him.  He  interceded 
for  the  people  before  God,  but  was  rejected.  "  Though 
Moses  and  Samuel  stood  before  Me,  My  heart  could 
not  be  toward  this  people"  (xv.  1).  He  carried  Jeliovah's 
word  to  the  people,  and  he  was  persecuted  because  of  it. 


THE  TEACHING  OF  JEREMIAH         363 

Clod  scciuecl  to  ayk  luucli  IVom  liim  and  to  give  liini 
notliing.  Yet  lie  gave  liiiu  lliniself.  And  He  gave  liini 
His  word.  On  tliis  the  propliet  fed.  "  Thy  words  were 
found,  and  I  did  eat  them ;  they  were  unto  nie  a  joy, 
and  the  rejoicing  of  mine  heart:  for  I  am  called  hy  Tliy 
name,  0  Jeliovah  God  of  hosts"  (xv.  IG).  To  know  God, 
to  be  His  servant,  to  liave  His  ear  to  pour  out  liis  sorrows 
and  perplexities  and  hard  experience  into,  was  enough. 
Success  he  had  none — only  defeat  on  every  side ;  yet  he 
w\as  himself  victorious  amidst  defeat.  His  teaching  is 
little  else  than  an  expression,  a  transcription  of  his  own 
pious  life,  of  liis  intimate  fellowship  with  God.  It  is 
personal  religion  become  conscious  of  itself.  Though  not 
in  the  same  formal  way  as  Ezekiel,  Jeremiah  took 
great  steps  towards  giving  prominence  to  the  individual 
mind. 

Several  things  combined  to  secure  this  result.  First, 
there  was  the  isolation  of  the  prophet.  He  felt  himself, 
especially  in  opposition  to  the  false  prophets,  the  only 
true  man  in  the  State.  This  isolation,  combined  with  his 
singular  tendency  to  introspection  and  self-analysis,  enaV»les 
us  to  see  his  mind  better  than  we  see  that  of  any  other 
prophet.  It  was  perhaps  his  isolation  that  compelled  him 
to  practise  introspection ;  it  required  him  to  analyse  his 
own  mind,  and  to  bring  clearly  before  himself  his  relation 
to  Jehovah,  and  perceive  wherein  the  essence  of  that 
relation  lay.  And  all  this  being  the  case  of  an  individual, 
it  established  the  position  of  the  individual  once  for  all. 
Secondly,  another  thing  led  to  the  same  result,  namely, 
his  conception  of  Jehovah.  Jehovah  is  to  him  a  purely 
ethical  being,  and  consequently  His  relation  to  the  subject 
in  fellowship  with  Him  is  a  purely  inward  one.  It  must, 
therefore,  be  a  relation  to  the  individual  mind.  And, 
conversely,  the  service  rendered  to  Him  nuist  be  a  service 
of  the  mind. 

From  this  position  follow  the  main  things  wliich 
appear  in  his  propliecies,  e.g.^  1.  His  condemnation  of  tlie 
whole  past  religious  history  of  the  nation ;  it  has  been  no 


364   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

service  of  Jeliovali  (chaps,  ii.,  iii.,  vi.).  2.  The  futility  of 
external  service  and  material  syniliols,  sucli  as  sacrifice, 
ark,  and  the  like :  the  time  is  coming  wlien  these  shall  no 
more  be  called  to  mind  (vii.  21—28,  vii.  9—11,  iii.  16— IcS). 
3.  Hence  his  dissatisfaction  with  or  indifference  to  the 
reforms  of  Josiah, — reforms  on  which  the  people  prided 
themselves.  It  is  not  reform  but  regeneration  that  is 
required :  "  Break  up  the  fallow  ground,  and  sow  not  among 
thorns ;  circumcise  your  hearts  "  (iv.  3  ;  cf.  references  to  the 
heart,  iv.  4,  14,  v.  23,  xi.  20,  xvii.  9,  xxxi.  33).  4. 
Hence  the  stringent  demand  for  morality  in  the  individual, 
the  subject  of  Jehovah's  fellowship  (v.  1,  vii.  26—28,  ix. 
1—6,  xviii.).  5.  Hence  prophecy  has  lost  what  was  extra- 
ordinary and  intermittent  in  it, — it  becomes  little  else 
than  an  exalted  piety.  Jeremiah  has  reached  the  condition 
spoken  of  by  the  Servant  of  the  Lord :  "  He  wakeneth 
my  ear,  he  wakeneth  morning  by  morning "  (Isa.  1.  4). 
iProphecy  is  a  continuous  standing  in  the  counsel  of  God. 
It  is  that  which  he  himself  predicts  of  all :  "  They  shall 
all  know  Me"  (xxxvi.  19).  His  conception  of  prophecy 
is  that  of  a  relation  of  mind  to  mind,  conscious  and  reason- 
able, and  his  scorn  is  for  the  '  dreams '  and  '  visions ' 
of  the  false  prophets  (xxiii.  21-32),  and  their  mechanical 
supernaturalism.  The  verification  of  prophecy  lies  in  the 
consciousness  of  the  true  prophet,  and  in  the  moral  nature 
of  his  prophecy ;  it  is  only  prophecies  of  *  peace '  to  sinners 
and  a  sinful  nation  that  require  justification  by  the  event 
(xxviii.  7-9).  6.  Hence  the  calmness  with  which  Jeremiah 
contemplates  the  ruin  of  the  State  as  a  State,  buys  a  field 
on  the  eve  of  the  city's  fall  (chap,  xxxii.),  and  counsels 
submission  to  the  king  of  Babylon  (xxi.  9,  xxix.  1—7, 
xxxviii.  17).  Though  the  State  falls,  the  individuals  of 
the  people  remain,  and  Jehovah  remains,  and  religion 
and  life  to  him  remain ;  and  7.  To  the  same  effect  is 
his  view  of  the  nature  of  the  New  Covenant.  The 
Lord  writes  it  on  the  heart  of  the  individual,  and 
Hiaves  it  on  his  inward  part ;  and  each  man  knows  the 
Lord  (xxxi.  33). 


MESSIANIC   CONCEPTIONS  365 

2.    Tlie  (^onsitmmaiwn  of  the  KivgJoiV: 

The  gicaC  thouglits  of  siilvalioii  wliicli  the  prophets 
give  forth  gather  around  certain  conspicuous  figures  in  the 
people  of  Israel.  One  of  these  figures  is  the  tlieocratic 
or  Davidic  king.  The  idea  of  the  king  occupies  a  large 
place  especially  in  prophets  like  Isaiah  and  Micah.  In  the 
various  lights  in  which  it  is  set,  and  the  glorious  colours 
with  which  it  is  invested,  it  becomes  the  most  fruitful  / 
Messianic  conception  in  prophecy.  In  the  second  part  of 
Isaiah  we  have  another  figure,  less  conspicuous  and  im- 
posing in  grandeur,  but,  if  possible,  more  singular  in 
the  attributes  with  which  it  is  invested,  and  suggesting 
thoughts  equally  profound,  although  in  an  altogether  differ- 
ent region — the  figure  of  the  Suffering  Servant  of  the  Lord. 
We  can  trace  the  character  of  the  theocratic  kingdom,  and 
see  what  efforts  the  prophets  make  to  set  forth  the  glories 
of  the  theocratic  king,  rising  in  their  conceptions  of  him 
till  at  last  they  reach  the  unsurpassable  height  of  naming 
him :  "  God  with  us — Mighty  God,"  and  teaching  that  in 
him  God  shall  be  wholly  present  with  His  people.  The 
point  to  which  that  delineation  of  the  theocratic  kingdom 
and  king  carries  us,  is  perhaps  the  most  favourable  place  for 
gathering  together  some  of  the  things  which  the  prophets  say 
about  the  issue  and  final  condition  of  the  kingdom.  This 
issue  of  the  theocracy  into  its  final  condition  takes  place 
at  a  time  and  imder  circumstances  which  make  up  what 
the  prophets  call  '  Tiie  day  of  the  Lord.'  These  two 
great  figures,  the  King  and  the  Servant,  suggest  almost 
all  the  conceptions  in  the  Old  Testament  which  we  are 
accustomed  to  call  Messianic  or  Christological.  It  is 
probable  that  Old  Testament  writers  themselves  did  not 
yet  identify  these  two  figures,  or  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  attributes  of  both  would  yet  be  combined  in  one 
person.  History,  however,  shows  that  this  was  to  be  the 
case.  The  Messianic  conceptions  and  hopes  in  Israel  are 
mainly  connected  with  the  last  days,  the  period  of  Israel's 
perfection  and  final  peace  and  blessing.      This  restoration 


366   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

of  Israel  and  its  perfection  are  realised  tlirough  this  event, 
'  The  day  of  the  Lord.' 

Now,  to  begin  with,  all  Israel's  spiritual  blessings  came 
from  God,  and  even  all  Israel's  blessings  of  whatever  kind. 
He  taught  Israel's  arms  to  fight,  and  made  him  tread  on 
his  high  places.  Salvation  belonged  unto  God.  And  in 
whatever  form  or  degree  salvation  was  attained,  it  was 
through  Him.  All  the  strength  of  the  nation  arose  from 
being  strengthened  with  might  by  His  Spirit,  when  all 
the  channels  of  their  life  were  filled  and  flushed  with  the 
Spirit  poured  into  them.  God  Himself  was  Israel's  highest 
blessing.  He  was  the  portion  of  her  cup.  His  nearness 
brought  salvation  near.  His  presence  in  its  fulness  was  the 
end  of  all  development  in  Israel  and  Israel's  glorification : 
"  Arise,  shine ;  for  thy  light  is  come,  and  the  glory  of  the 
Lord  is  risen  upon  thee"  (Isa.  Ix.  1).  This  was  the 
meaning  of  the  covenant  relation. 

With  regard  to  the  covenant,  the  two  great  factors  in 
it  are,  of  course,  God  and  the  people.  Under  the  former 
head  is  discussed  what  is  properly  called  theology,  under 
the  latter  what  is  named  anthropology.  The  Messianic 
teaching  might  be  taken  as  a  part  of  the  first,  and  the 
doctrine  of  immortality  as  a  part  of  the  second.  These 
two  in  some  respects  correspond.  They  form  respectively 
the  eschatology  of  the  two  departments ;  or  rather  the 
Messianic  doctrine  belongs  to  the  eschatology  of  the  nation 
or  people ;  immortality,  to  the  eschatology  of  the  indi- 
vidual. Even  the  Messianic  doctrine  is  not  strictly  a 
distinct  thing  in  the  Old  Testament ;  it  is  an  element  of 
the  eschatology  or  final  condition.  There  does  not,  I  think, 
run  through  the  Old  Testament  a  distinct  hope,  to  be 
called  the  Messianic  hope.  What  is  interpreted  as  Messi- 
anic in  the  New  Testament,  is  rather  everything  in  the 
Old  Testament  that  is  ideal  of  its  own  kind,  wdiatever 
that  kind  may  be, — an  idealism  only  to  be  realised  in  the 
last  times,  whether,  for  example,  it  be  the  king,  or  the 
people,  or  the  priest,  or  the  individual  saint. 

Being  thus  some  form  of  the  final  and  perfect  condi- 


VARIOUS    FORMS    OF   THE   MESSIANIC  367 

tioii  of  the  kingdom  or  peoi)lo  of  Jcliovah  upon  the  earth, 
heing  a  picture  of  this,  or  of  tliis  in  some  of  its  aspects, 
or  of  some  great  outstanding  personage  wlio  is  iniluential 
in  the  introduction  of  tliis  ])erfect  state,  or  in  maintaining 
and  perpetuating  it, — that  which  we  may  call  the  Messianic, 
— using  the  word  in  tliat  general  sense,  as  nearly  equivalent 
to  cschatological  in  reference  to  the  kingdom, — may  assume 
very  different  forms,  and  bring  into  ideal  prominence 
ditlerent  persons  or  agents  in  the  work  of  perfecting  the 
kingdom,  or  in  its  condition  when  perfected.  We  can 
perceive  that  Jehovah's  own  operation  and  His  own  pre- 
sence will  be  the  essential  Messianic  element.  TJien  we 
have  the  state  and  conduct  of  the  people  as  a  whole;  and 
then,  again,  tlie  theocratic  king  idealised  as  he  shall  be 
in  the  latter  day,  when  the  kingdom  of  God  is  perfect ; 
or,  because  he  was  representative  of  Jehovah  and  the 
destinies  of  the  kingdom  were  in  his  hand,  the  individual 
saint  in  his  sufferings  and  deliverance. 

The  Messianic,  as  it  is  called,  will  thus  differ  very 
greatly  in  different  ages.  The  prominent  agent  in  the 
particular  age  will  be  idealised.  At  all  times,  of  course, 
Jehovah's  work  and  presence  may  be  dwelt  upon.  Also 
at  almost  any  thue  the  condition  of  the  people  may  be 
idealised.  During  the  monarchy  the  prominent  personage 
will  be  the  Davidic  king,  and  so  on. 

Dividing  the  history  into  periods,  the  prominent  figures 
seem  these : 

1.  Jehovah,  in  His  work  and  presence,  at  all  times, 
And  this  is  of  special  importance,  because  it  lays  the 
foundation  both  for  the  work  and  the  person  of  the  Messiah. 
Whoever  lie  is,  it  is  Jehovah  in  him  that  is  Saviour. 

2.  In  the  pre-monarchical  period  it  is  chiefly  the  people, 
or  mankind,  as  in  the  protevangelium,  the  promises  to 
Abraham  and  the  patriarchs  :  "  In  thee  and  in  thy  seed  "  ; 
and  in  the  poems  of  Balaam. 

3.  During  the  monarchy  it  is  tlie  Davidic  king, — 
the  IVIessianic  king  as  representative  of  Jehovah, — tliough 
also,  of  course,  many  times,  of  His  people.      This  is  parti- 


368   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

culaiiy  the  case  during  the  Assyrian  conflicts,  because 
the  destiny  of  the  State  was  greatly  in  the  hands  of  the 
kings,  and  because  the  Davidic  monarchy  was  threatened 
with  extinction  in  Isaiah's  days  and  in  Micah's.  The 
Davidic  king  is  intra-Israel ;  the  Servant  of  the  Lord  is 
much  wider,  intra-national.  The  widening  ideas  of  the 
time  could  not  but  create  a  larger  subject,  giving  him  a 
larger  scope. 

4.  After  the  destruction  of  the  monarchy,  the  Messianic 
or  eschatological  hopes  again  centre  in  the  people,  as  in 
the  second  half  of  Isaiah ;  the  personal  Messiah,  as  Davidic 
king,  drops  out  of  sight ;  the  Divine  in  this  case  is  the 
revelation  of  God  incarnated  in  Israel. 

5.  At  the  Eestoration,  as  was  to  be  expected,  the 
priest  becomes  more  promhient  or  the  union  of  the 
priestly  and  the  kingly  becomes  so,  because  the  greater 
sense  of  sin  brings  the  idea  of  atonement  into  prominence. 
So  in  the  prophets  of  the  Eestoration,  Zechariah,  Haggai, 
and  Malachi. 

It  is  remarkable  that  the  prophet  plays  little  part  in 
the  eschatological  view.  Except  in  the  passage  in  Deutero- 
nomy, he  has  no  place,  though  the  prophetic  function  of  the 
people  is  the  main  conception  of  the  second  half  of  Isaiah. 

But  in  the  view  of  the  prophets  themselves,  their 
own  function  would  be  superseded  in  the  perfect  State. 
Jehovah  would  write  His  law  on  men's  hearts,  and  one 
should  no  more  teach  his  neighbour.  The  Spirit  of  God 
takes  the  place  of  the  prophet — He  is  poured  out  on  all 
flesh,  and  they  all  prophesy ;  all  the  Lord's  people  are 
prophets.  With  regard  to  Daniel,  my  impression  is  that, 
in  that  book,  it  is  the  people,  the  saints  of  the  Most  High, 
who  shall  receive  the  kingdom,  and  that  the  "  son  of  man  " 
in  that  prophecy  is  a  symbol  of  the  people,  and  not  of 
an  individual.  This  point,  however,  is  somewhat  obscure. 
When  the  idea  of  tlie  covenant  relation  was  realised  in 
God's  full  presence  in  Israel,  then  Israel  had  reached  the 
end  of  her  desires  and  attained  perfection.  The  idea  of 
salvation  in  the  Old  Testament  i^  fellowship  with  God. 


RESTORATION    IN    THK    LATER    PROPHETS  369 

That  tliis  union  of  Ood  with  Israel  should  yet  be 
realised,  all  the  prophets  tirndy  believe.  No  doubt  ere 
that  time  come  there  shall  be  great  sorrows,  and  Israel 
shall  seem  al)andoned  of  God.  All  the  prophets  predict 
the  dissolution  of  Israel ;  but  they  look  across  the  dark 
stream  of  ileath,  and  behold  a  new  life  on  the  other  side. 
They  usually  put  the  two,  destruction  and  restoration,  side 
by  side  in  abrupt  opposition  to  one  anotlier.  One  prophet, 
like  Micah,  may  first  describe,  as  in  his  first  three  chapters, 
the  dissolution  of  Israel :  "  Zion  sliall  be  plouglied  like  a 
field,  and  Jerusalem  shall  become  heaps "  ;  and  then  in 
the  following  chapters  paint  the  restoration  of  the  pris- 
tine kingdom,  and  the  revival  of  the  House  of  David : 
"  It  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  latter  day  that  the  mountain 
of  the  house  of  the  Lord  .  .  .  shall  be  exalted  above  the 
hills,  and  all  nations  shall  fiow  to  it."  Another  prophet, 
like  Isaiah,  may  begin  with  this  prediction,  and  run  out  the 
development  of  calamity  from  his  own  present  till  this 
time  of  perfection  is  reached.  Usually  the  prophets  do 
not  bridge  over  the  chasm  between  Israel's  dissolution  and 
her  restoration.  They  move  usually  in  the  higher  region 
of  Divine  procedure.  And  as  God  chastises  Israel  by 
dispersing  her  in  His  anger,  so  He  gathers  her  together 
again  in  His  returning  mercy.  But,  in  the  earlier  pro- 
phets, the  internal  processes  within  Israel  which  explain, 
or  at  all  events  accompany,  this  different  dealing,  are 
usually  only  hinted  at. 

In  later  prophets,  on  the  other  hand,  or  at  all  events 
in  prophets  whose  point  of  view  is  that  of  a  later  time, 
as  in  the  second  part  of  Isaiah,  we  have  laid  bare  to  us 
the  wonderful  internal  process  going  on  within  Israel,  the 
atonement  of  her  sin  and  her  repentance,  which  mediate 
the  Eestoration.  We  have  it  also  in  Zechariah  :  "  I  will 
pour  out  on  Israel  the  spirit  of  grace  and  of  supplications, 
and  they  shall  look  on  Him  whom  they  have  pierced,  and 
mourn"  (xii.  10).  The  prophets  may  not  express,  they 
may  not  even  represent,  to  themselves  the  means  of  Israel's 
restoration,  except  that  God  shall  accomplish  it ;  but  they 
24 


370   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

all  believe  in  it.  And  in  the  prophecies,  certainly  in 
those  of  Isaiah,  we  have  the  idea  of  continuity,  and  the 
holy  seed  indestructible  blossoms  out  into  a  new  people. 
When  they  accompany  to  the  grave,  with  bitter  lamenta- 
tions, the  bier  on  which  is  laid  the  virgin  daughter  of 
Israel,  they  sorrow  not  as  those  that  have  no  hope.  She 
shall  rise  again  :  "  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God,  Behold,  0 
My  people,  I  will  open  your  graves,  and  cause  you  to 
come  up  out  of  your  graves,  and  bring  you  into  the  land 
of  Israel"  (Ezek.  xxxvii.  12). 

Now  the  author  of  all  this  to  Israel  being  God,  the 
fulness  of  Israel's  life  and  the  perfection  of  her  attainment  is 
often  described  as  the  coming  of  God.  What  precise  concep- 
tion the  prophets  formed  of  this  coming  of  God  may  not  be 
easy  to  determine.  But  it  was  not  merely  a  coming  in 
wonders,  or  in  the  word  of  His  prophets,  or  in  a  spiritual 
influence  and  a  change  in  His  people's  minds.  It  was  some- 
thing objective  and  personal :  "  Behold,  the  Lord  cometh  in 
might,  with  His  arm  ruling  for  Him.  The  glory  of  the 
Lord  shall  be  revealed,  and  all  flesh  shall  see  it  together." 
When  He  came  He  came  in  His  fulness.  The  age  behind 
was  wound  up  and  a  new  age  commenced.  The  processes 
that  had  been  long  going  on  ran  out,  and  new  lines  of 
movement  began.  This  coming  was  not  only  the  per- 
fection of  Israel,  it  was  also  the  restitution  of  all  things, 
the  renovation  of  the  world.  And  it  was  a  thing  which 
not  Israel  alone,  but  the  inanimate  world,  had  longed  for 
and  rejoiced  in  :  "  The  Lord  is.  King  ;  let  the  earth  rejoice ; 
let  the  multitude  of  isles  be  glad  thereat "  (Ps.  xcvii.  1). 
During  the  past,  the  former  age,  God  had  often  seemed 
apathetic.  He  slept ;  He  let  the  reins  of  government 
slip  from  His  liands.  He  winked  at  men's  wickedness. 
Now  He  awoke.  He  grasped  the  reins  of  power ;  He 
took  to  Him  His  power  and  reigned.  The  kingdom  was 
the  Lord's. 

Now  this  is  the  fundamental  thing, — Jehovah  in  per- 
son was  present  with  His  people.  But  this  coming  of 
Jehovah  is  not  always  represented  as  being  accomplished 


CHIEF    PERIODS    OF    THE    MESSIANIC  871 

in  the  same  way.  Sometimes  tlie  direct  appearance  of 
Jehovah  in  person  is  asserted,  and  the  question  liow  His 
appearance  shall  be  realised  is  answered.  Sometimes  the 
coming  is  accomplished  in  the  line  of  the  Messianic 
hope — Jehovah  comes  down  among  His  peoi)le  in  the 
Messiah,  His  presence  is  manifested  and  realised  in  him. 
The  Messiah  is  "  Immanuel — God  with  us,"  he  is  M  Gihhor, 
'mighty  God/  God  is  fully  present,  for  purposes  of 
redemption,  in  the  Messianic  king.  This  is  the  loftiest 
Messianic  conception.  It  places  the  Messiah  in  the  line 
of  the  perfect  realisation  of  the  hopes  of  Israel.  Her 
highest  hope  was  the  perfect  manifestation  of  God  and 
His  abode  among  the  people ;  and  when  this  hope  is 
conceived  as  finding  verification  through  the  line  of  the 
Messiah,  the  Messiah  becomes  in  himself  the  personal 
appearance  of  God. 

The  Messianic  hope  in  the  early  prophets  ran  chiefly  in 
the  line  of  the  theocratic  kingship,  and  this  hope  blossomed 
into  extraordinary  splendour  on  two  great  occasions.  The 
first  was  the  glorious  reign  of  David  and  the  early  monarchs 
of  his  house.  This  gave  rise  to  hopes,  and  suggested  con- 
ceptions, and  disengaged,  if  I  may  say  so,  ideals  which 
constituted  the  loftiest  Messianic  revelations.  These  are 
contained  in  the  Messianic  Psalms,  such  as  Pss.  ii.,  Ixxii.,  ex., 
and  others.  Such  passages  seem  to  repose  on  the  promise 
made  to  David  by  Nathan,  that  his  house  should  never  cease 
to  bear  rule  in  the  kingdom  of  Jehovah.  This  promise  is 
often  alluded  to  in  Scripture.  It  is  formally  stated  in 
.2  Sam.  vii.  12  ff. ;  alluded  to  in  Pss.  Ixxxix.,  cxxxii.,  and  in 
David's  last  words,  2  Sam.  xxiii.ff.,  1  Kings  xi.  13,  36  ;  while 
Ps.  ii.  and  others  are  based  on  it.  It  is  also  present  to  the 
mind  of  all  the  prophets,  even  the  oldest,  as  Amos  and  Hosea. 
The  other  occasion  was  when  danger  threatened  the  Davidic 
house,  or  when  the  certain  dissolution  of  the  kingdom  was 
before  the  prophet's  mind.  Here  two  cliief  periods  may  be 
mentioned  as  giving  rise  to  conceptions  called  Messianic: 
(1)  the  age  of  Hezekiah  ;  (2)  the  age  of  tlie  Exile.  Perhaps 
we  should  give  a  third  later  age — an  age  of  the  study  of 


372   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

the  old  predictions.  Then  the  inextinguishahle  faith  of  th(» 
propliets  in  God's  promises  reacted  against  the  appearances 
and  dangers  of  the  present,  and  they  recalled  to  mind  the 
'  sure  mercies  of  David,'  and  the  '  covenant  ordered  in  all 
things ' ;  and  Isaiah  gave  the  prophecies  of  the  Vm/ins  Son 
and  the  Mighty  God ;  while  Micah  saw  rising  on  the  ruins 
of  Jerusalem  a  new  Zion,  and  the  former  kingdom  restored 
to  it.  This  was  the  inspired  protest  of  faith  in  the  face  of 
danger,  or  in  view  of  the  dissolution  of  the  kingdom,  now 
perceived  to  be  inevitable.  This  continued,  and  is  repeated, 
e.g.,  in  Jeremiah. 

But  when  the  kingdom  had  been  long  destroyed,  and 
the  Davidic  house  long  in  abasement,  these  ideas  became 
less  prominent.  Circumstances  turned  the  thoughts  of  the 
prophets  in  other  directions,  and  made  them  move  on  other 
lines.  God's  providential  treatment  of  Israel  raised  new 
conceptions  of  the  future.  The  struggling  nationality  in 
Babylon  attracted  interest  especially.  Its  faith  amidst  its 
exile,  its  constancy  amidst  its  persecutions,  its  permanence 
and  enduring  individuality  amidst  defections,  and  the  wear- 
ing hardships  and  enticements  from  the  heathenism  about 
it, — these  drew  the  attention  of  the  prophets.  The  idea  of 
the  people  of  God,  the  other  side  of  the  groat  covenant 
relation,  rather  than  that  of  the  theocratic  king,  was  what 
filled  their  minds.  And  there  floated  before  them  glorious 
idealisations  of  that  people,  of  its  endowments  by  God,  of 
its  destinies,  of  what  it  should  accomplish  in  the  world,  and 
what  it  should  be  when  God  returned  to  it  and  restored 
it  to  its  own  land.  Then  comes  to  light  the  meaning  of 
Israel's  sufferings,  and  the  holy  figure  of  the  Suffering 
Servant  rises  before  the  prophet's  view. 

In  this  way  a  new  and  most  fruitful  Messianic  concep- 
tion is  struck — profounder  if  possible,  than  any  previous. 
But  it  is  a  conception  wholly  different  from  the  former 
one,  though  it  comes  in  to  supplement  it.  The  former 
Messianic  conception  made  prominent  the  Divine  side. 
Its  highest  expression  was  God  'ivifh  vs.  In  the  Messiah, 
Jehovah    came    to    His    people.       But,   as    was    said,   the 


THE    MESSIANIC    AND    THE    ESCHATOLOGICAL       ST^ 

prophet  left  imreconciled  the  antithesis  hetween  a  sinful 
Israel  and  an  Israel  among  whom  God  was  to  be  present 
for  ever  in  peace  and  fatlierly  protection  and  care.  God 
could  abide  in  this  way  only  among  a  purified  people. 
And  now  the  chasm  is  filled  up.  Israel  is  purified  hy  tlie 
sufferings  of  the  Servant  of  the  Lord:  ''By  His  sfri^ms  ivc 
have  been  healed"  (Isa.  liii.  5),  and  Jehovah  dwells  for  ever 
among  them.  But  this  Servant  rises  out  of  the  people. 
He  is  Israel  itself.  He  realises  in  himself  all  that  Israel 
should  be,  and  therefore  atones  for  Israelites  who  have  not 
such  characteristics.  But  he  is  a  figure  suggested  by  the 
suflerings  of  godly  Israel,  the  holy  kernel  of  the  people  in 
exile.  He  is  the  Messiah,  but  not  the  King  Messiah.  It 
is  doubtful  if  the  prophets  identified  in  tlieir  own  minds 
the  Servant  of  Jehovah  and  the  King  Messiah.  Later 
revelation  showed  them  to  be  one.  But,  in  the  Old 
Testament,  Messianic  truth  runs  in  many  streams,  far 
apart,  all  pursuing  their  own  way,  and  regarding  which 
one  far  up  the  stream  would  be  unable  to  say  that  they 
would  yet  meet  in  the  same  sea. 

Again,  in  Zech.  iii.  the  Branch  is  the  Messiah.  And 
the  conception  of  atonement  struck  in  Isaiah  reappears, 
though  it  is  doubtful  if  it  is  in  quite  the  same  sense. 
There  is  another  very  difficult  passage  in  Zechariah  where 
the  same  conception  of  suffering  seems  to  appear :  "  They 
shall  look  unto  Him  whom  they  have  pierced  "  (xii.  10). 

And,  finally,  the  Book  of  Daniel  is,  as  a  whole,  Mes- 
sianic, though  whether  in  the  more  general  and  wide  sense 
of  eschatological,  or  in  the  narrower  sense  of  personally 
Messianic,  will  depend  on  our  interpretation  of  the  phrase, 
*  a  son  of  man,'  i.e.  it  is  not  quite  clear  wlietlier  this  son  of 
man  be  a  real  person,  the  Messianic  king,  or  a  personification 
of  the  people  of  the  sahits  of  tlie  IMost  High ,  represented 
as  human  in  opposition  to  the  beasts  which  represented 
the  heathen  kingdoms.  Witliout  doubt  the  former  inter- 
pretation became  very  prevalent  befoi-e  the  time  of  our 
Lord,  and  the  Book  of  Daniel  is  a  very  imjiortant  element 
in  the  formati(jn  of  tlie  Messianic  hope  of  his  time. 


374        THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

As  has  been  remarked,  however,  the  prophets,  regarding 
Jehovah's  presence  as  Israel's  salvation,  dwelt  much  on  His 
coming.  It  is  not  necessary  to  multiply  references.  The 
first  eleven  verses  of  Isa.  xl.,  of  which  the  climax  is,  "  Say 
to  the  cities  of  Judah :  Behold  your  God " — "  the  Lord 
Cometh  in  strength,"  are  an  example  ;  and  among  the  Psalms 
the  ciind,  "  Thou  shalt  arise,  and  have  mercy  upon  Zion.  .  .  . 
So  the  heathen  shall  fear  the  name  of  the  Lord,  and  all  tlie 
kings  of  the  earth  Thy  glory ;  when  the  Lord  shall  build 
up  Zion,  He  shall  appear  in  His  glory  "  (ver,  1 3  ff.).  Now 
the  authors  of  these  passages,  and  others  like  them,  had 
not  in  their  mind  the  Messiah.  They  spoke  of  tlie  appear- 
ance of  Jehovah  Himself,  without  connecting  it  with  the 
Messianic  hope.  But  Jehovah's  appearance  in  glory  could 
not  in  reality  take  place  on  two  lines,  and  subsequent  revela- 
tion fitted  these  passages  into  the  line  of  Jehovah's  mani- 
festations in  the  Messiah.  These  manifestations  of  Jehovah 
were  either  for  salvation  or  for  judgment.  But  for  these 
ends  Jehovah  appeared  in  the  Messiah.  All  judgment  is 
committed  into  his  hand.  Hence,  in  the  New  Testament,  these 
passages  are  all  referred  to  the  manifestation  of  God  in  the 
Messiah. 

3.    The  Day  of  the  Lord, 

But  to  be  more  specific.  This  manifestation  of  Jeho- 
vah is  conceived  as  occurring  at  a  set  time,  and  with 
certain  characteristics  accompanying  it ;  and  in  this  aspect 
it  is  called  the  day  of  the  Lord.  It  is  possible  that  in 
Hebrew  as  in  Arabic  the  day  means  the  day  of  battle ;  the 
day  of  Badr  is  the  battle  of  Badr,  and  this  may  be  the 
primary  sense  of  the  phrase  in  Hebrew.  And,  in  fact,  in 
Isa.  ii.,  where  it  is  used,  it  may  refer  to  the  Lord's  battle 
day — through  His  instruments  the  Assyrians.  But  natur- 
ally the  phrase  soon  acquired  a  wider  sense  in  Hebrew.  It 
is  not,  however,  to  be  regarded  primarily  as  an  assize^  a  day 
of  judgment ;  judgment  always  took  place  in  an  external 
manner,  in  the  form  of  chastisement  at  God's  hands  through 
His  instruments — often  in  war.     It  is  a  day  that  is  a  special 


THE    DAY    OF    THE    LORD  875 

time ;  and  it  is  the  day  of  llie  l^oid,  belongs  to  Him,  is 
His  tin  0  for  working,  for  manifesting  Himse.lf,  for  display- 
ing His  character,  for  performing  His  work — ^His  strange 
work  upon  the  earth.  Hence  Isaiah  says :  "  For  the  Lord 
of  hosts  hath  a  day  upon  every  one  that  is  proud  and  lofty 
.  .  .  and  he  shall  be  brought  low"  (ii.  12);  "And  the 
Lord  alone  shall  be  exalted  in  that  day"  (ver.  17). 

Now,  as  to  this  day,  these  things  may  be  observed : 
(1)  As  it  was  a  day  of  the  manifestation  of  Jehovah, 
God  of  Israel,  in  His  fulness,  and  therefore  in  a  way  to 
realise  His  purposes,  which,  with  Israel  and  even  with  the 
world,  were  those  of  grace,  it  is  fundamentally  a  day  of  joy 
to  Israel  and  also  to  the  world.  "  Let  the  children  of  Zion 
be  joyful  in  their  King  "  (Ps.  cxlix.  2).  "  The  Lord  is  king  ; 
let  the  earth  rejoice  ;  let  the  multitude  of  the  isles  be  glad 
thereof"  (Ps.  xcvii.  1).  "  Say  among  the  heathen  that  the 
Lord  is  king.  .  .  .  Let  the  heavens  rejoice,  and  let  the 
earth  be  glad ;  let  the  sea  roar  (i.e.  for  gladness),  and 
the  fulness  thereof.  Let  the  fields  be  joyful,  and  all  that 
is  therein.  .  .  .  Before  the  Lord :  for  He  cometh,  for  He 
Cometh  to  rule  the  earth :  He  shall  rule  the  world  with 
rigliteousness,  and  the  peoples  with  His  truth "  (Ps.  xcvi. 
10—13).  That  Jehovah  should  reign,  and  that  He  shoidd 
come  to  the  earth  as  King,  must,  in  spite  of  all  the 
terrors  that  might  attend  His  coming,  bring  to  the  world 
a  pervading  gladness.  For  the  falsehood  and  injustice 
that  had  cursed  the  earth  so  long  would  disappear,  and  the 
longing  of  men,  who  were  ever,  in  words  or  sighs,  crying, 
'  Show  us  the  Father,  and  it  sufficeth  us,'  should  be  satisfied 
But  it  would  be  a  day  of  satisfaction,  above  all,  to  Israel, 
when  He  should  plead  her  cause ;  for  the  day  of  vengeance 
was  in  His  heart,  and  the  year  of  His  redeemed  w^as  come. 
Naturally  an  accompaniment  of  the  manifestation  of  Jehovah 
was  the  disappearance  of  the  idols.  "Ashamed,  tm-ned 
back  .  .  .  are  all  they  that  frame  graven  images ;  Israel  is 
saved  with  an  eternal  salvation"  (Isa.  xlv.  17).  "On  that 
day  men  shall  cast  their  idols  of  silver  and  their  idols  of 
gold  to  the  moles  and  to  the  bats"  (ii.  20). 


376   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

But  ill  the  view  of  the  prophets  the  gigantic  oppres- 
sions which  tlie  empires  of  Assyria  and  l)al)ylon  meant 
to  Israel,  were  ])ut  projections  of  their  idolatry,  with 
its  cruelties  and  inhumanity,  and  licentiousness  and  pride. 
The  later  prophet,  Daniel,  condenses  this  idea  into  a  graphic 
enough  and  expressive  figure,  when  he  represents  the 
heathen  monarcliies  under  the  imac^e  of  various  savau;e 
beasts,  while  the  kingdom  of  God  is  represented  under  the 
image  of  a  man.  These  kingdoms  were  embodiments  of 
the  qualities  of  the  brute ;  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel  man 
rose  to  his  place,  and  the  true  attributes  of  humanity  found 
full  play  and  embodiment.  Hence  the  grand  tone  of  all 
descriptions  of  the  day  of  the  Lord  is  a  certain  joy,  which 
is  willing  to  face  the  terrors  of  His  coming  for  that  which 
shall  follow  upon  it.  Behind  the  tempest  the  sky  breaks 
clear.  The  terror,  and  the  joy  that  is  in  spite  of  it,  are 
finely  displayed  in  the  hymn  of  Habakkuk  (chap.  iii.). 

(2)  To  those  in  Israel  who  looked  for  Jehovah's  coming, 
apart  from  the  natural  terrors  of  it,  it  was  unmixed  satis- 
faction. And  ic  would  have  been  so  to  all  Israel  had  fidelity 
to  her  relation  to  Jehovah  been  universal.  But  this  was 
far  from  being  the  state  of  Israel.  The  condition  of  Israel 
was  mixed.  Hence  the  '  day  of  the  Lord,'  while  as  a  whole 
a  day  of  salvation,  had  another  side,  which  made  it  a  day 
of  jud^jment.  To  Israel  as  the  people  of  God  it  was  a  day 
of  salvation,  and  consequently  it  was  a  day  of  vengeance 
and  judgment  upon  the  people's  foes,  i.e.  all  the  heathen 
round  about.  Thus  Obadiah  (vers.  15-17)  says :  "  For  the 
day  of  the  Lord  is  near  upon  all  the  heathen :  as  thou  hast 
done  (to  Israel),  it  shall  be  done  unto  thee :  thy  reward 
shall  return  upon  thine  own  head,  .  .  .  but  upon  Mount 
Zion  shall  be  deliverance,  and  there  shall  be  holiness." 
But  there  were  many  in  Israel  who  belonged  to  Israel 
only  in  race.  They  were  "  filled  from  the  East,  and  were 
soothsayers  like  the  Philistines  "  (Isa.  ii.  6).  They  shared 
the  idolatries  and  practised  the  sins  of  the  nations ;  and, 
as  Jeremiah  charges  it  upon  them,  their  sin  was  double : 
"  Hath  a  nation  changed  their  gods,  which  are  no  gods  ? 


A    DAY    OF   SIFTING  377 

but  My  ])0()])lo  liavo  ('li;mu;od  their  glory  for  tliat  wliicli 
(bttli  lint  prnlil,.  .  .  .  My  }»e()plo  lia,vo  committed  two  great 
evils :  they  have  foryakeu  the  fountain  of  hving  waters, 
and  hewn  out  unto  themselves  cisterns,  broken  cisterns, 
that  can  liold  no  water "  (ii.  11—13).  Thei'efore  the  day 
of  the  Lord  came  upon  Israel  also  as  a  day  of  terrors 
and  destruction.  And  the  true  prophets  tind  it  necessary 
to  warn  the  people  against  a  superticial  national  conception 
of  the  day  of  the  Lord,  as  if  it  was  a  mere  interference 
of  Jehovah  in  behalf  of  Israel  as  a  people,  and  not  a 
manifestation  on  strict  moral  lines,  and  a  revelation  of  the 
righteous  judgment  of  God.  So  early  even  as  Amos  this 
perversion  of  the  idea  liad  crept  in :  "  Woe  unto  you  that 
desire  the  day  of  the  Lord  !  Wherefore  will  ye  have  the 
day  of  the  Lord  ?  It  is  darkness,  and  not  light.  As  if  a 
man  did  flee  from  a  lion,  and  a  bear  met  him.  Shall  not 
the  day  of  the  Lord  be  darkness  ?  even  very  dark,  and  no 
brightness  in  it  ?  "  (v.  18). 

Hence  the  '  day  of  the  Lord '  acquires  a  double-sided 
character.  It  is  a  day  of  salvation  and  jrd.o'raent,  or  a  day 
of  salvation  through  judgment, — a  day  of  judgment  on  the 
heathen  world  and  the  Churcli's  foes,  but  also  u])on  the 
apostate,  impure  Church  itself, — and  a  day  of  salvation 
behind  this.  Sometimes  one  side  is  prominent  and  some- 
times another.  Sometimes  it  is  represented  as  a  process  of 
sifting,  or  a  process  of  refining.  Thus  Zephaniah,  whose 
book  is  just  a  detailed  delineation  of  the  day  of  the  Lord, 
says :  "  The  day  of  the  Lord  is  at  hand ;  the  Lord  hath 
prepared  a  sacrifice,  and  He  hath  bid  His  guests "  [Israel 
is  the  society,  and  the  nations  who  execute  His  wrath  are 
the  guests].  ..."  And  it  shall  come  to  pass  at  that  time, 
that  I  will  search  Jerusalem  with  candles,  and  punish  the 
men  that  are  settled  on  their  lees"  (i.  7—12).  And  an- 
other prophet  says :  "  I  wdll  turn  My  hand  upon  thee,  and 
purge  away  thy  dross"  (Isa.  i.  25);  and  yet  anotlier: 
"  Who  may  abide  the  day  of  His  coming  .  .  .  for  He  is 
like  a  refiner's  fire  .  .  .  and  He  slmll  sit  as  a  refiner  and 
purifier  of  silver"  (Mai.  iii.  2,  3).     Sometimes  both  sides 


378   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

of  tlie  Divine  manifestation  are  l)rouglit  forward,  as  in  Joel : 
"  I  will  pour  out  My  Spirit  u[)on  all  llesli  ;  .  .  .  and  I  will 
show  wonders  in  the  Iieavens  and  in  the  eartli,  blood,  and 
fire,  and  pillars  of  smoke.  The  sun  shall  be  turned  into 
darkness,  and  the  moon  into  blood,  before  the  great  and 
terrible  day  of  the  Lord  come.  .  .  .  And  it  shall  come  to 
pass,  that  whosoever  shall  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord 
shall  be  delivered"  (chap.  ii.  28-32). 

It  is  in  connection  with  this  side  of  the  day,  which 
is  judgment,  that  all  the  terrible  pictures  of  it  are  drawn 
with  which  we  are  familiar  That  day,  says  Amos,  is 
"  darkness,  and  not  light  "  (v.  18).  According  to  Joel,  it  is 
a  "  day  of  darkness  and  of  gloominess,  a  day  of  clouds  and 
of  thick  darkness "  (ii.  2)  .  .  .  "  the  sun  and  moon  shall 
be  dark,  and  the  stars  shall  withdraw  their  shining  "  (ii.  10). 
Isaiah  describes  it  as  a  day  of  terrors :  "  Men  shall  go  into 
the  holes  of  the  rocks  and  into  the  caves  of  the  earth  for 
fear  of  the  Lord  .  .  .  they  shall  say  to  the  mountains, 
Cover  us;  and  to  the  hills.  Fall  on  us"  (ii.  19).  "Behold, 
the  Lord  maketh  the  earth  empty,  and  maketh  it  waste, 
and  turneth  it  ujjside  down,  and  emptieth  out  the  inhabit- 
ants thereof  .  .  .  the  earth  shall  reel  to  and  fro  like  a 
drunkard,  it  shall  shake  like  a  booth  .  .  .  and  it  shall  fall, 
and  not  rise  again"  (Isa.  xxiv.  1—20).  "Behold,  the  day 
of  the  Lord  cometh,  cruel  both  with  wrath  and  fierce  anger, 
to  lay  the  earth  desolate  .  .  .  therefore  I  will  shake  the 
heavens,  and  remove  the  earth  out  of  her  place,  in  the 
wrath  of  the  Lord  of  hosts"  (Isa.  xiii.  9,  13).  For  this 
wrath  shall  be  universal  and  indiscriminate :  "  I  will 
utterly  consume  all  things  from  off  the  earth,  saith  the 
Lord.  I  will  consume  man  and  beast ;  I  will  consume  the 
fowls  of  the  heaven,  and  the  fishes  of  the  sea  .  .  .  and  I 
will  cut  olf  man  from  off  the  earth,  saith  the  Lord.  Hold 
thy  peace  at  the  presence  of  the  Lord  God :  for  the  day 
of  the  Lord  is  at  hand"  (Zeph.  i.  2-7). 

(3)  From  this  character  of  the  day  as  a  manifestation 
of  God  we  may  understand  how  it  is  that  the  prophets 
connect  it  with  many  different  things.     It  is  a  manifesta- 


THE.  FUTUEE  IN  THE  PRESENT        379 

.  f 
tion  of  God— of  (St)d  as  whafc  He  is  truly,  ;iud  in  llie 
whole  round  of  His  being.  Hence  it  displays  His  whole 
chanicter,  and  sees  His  whol^  purpose  elTecied.  Hence  it 
has  universal  bearings.  But  all  manifestations  of  Jehovah 
are  on  moral  lines.  God  wholly  revealed  is  only  in  per- 
fection that  wliich  He  is  partially  seen  to  be  every  day. 
His  perfect  work  is  but  the  completion  of  the  work  which 
He  can  be  seen  at  any  time  engaged  in  performing.  The 
final  state  of  things  was  but  the  issue  of  operations  going 
on  always.  The  prophets  are  in  the  dark  as  to  the  time 
of  that  day,  but  they  are  in  no  ignorance  of  the  principles 
of  it.  And  the  feeling  that  these  principles,  retarded  by 
many  obstacles  in  their  operation  now,  counteracted  by 
the  opposing  wills  of  men,  and  by  their  insensibiUty  to 
Jehovah's  work  among  them,  may  at  any  moment  over- 
come the  obstacles  and  throw  off  the  hindrances  that 
impeded  them,  and  run  out  into  perfect  realisation,  was 
ever  present  with  them.  Thus,  when  they  observed  a 
quickening  of  the  currents  of  providence  in  any  direction, 
whether  of  judgment  or  salvation,  the  presentiment  filled 
their  minds  that  it  was  the  beginning  of  the  day  of  the 
Lord.  Hence  Joel  attaches  that  day  to  the  plague  of 
locusts  and  drought ;  this  extraordinary  judgment  seemed 
to  him  the  first  warnings  of  the  universal  judgment. 
Another  prophet  (Isa.  xiii.)  connects  the  day  with  the 
violent  upheavals  among  the  nations  that  accompanied 
the  overthrow  of  the  Babylonian  monarchy  by  the  Modes  : 
"  The  oracle  of  Babylon  .  .  .  the  noise  of  a  multitude  .  .  . 
a  tumvdtuous  noise  of  the  kingdoms  of  nations  gathered 
together  .  .  .  they  come  from  a  far  country,  even  the 
Lord,  and  the  weapons  of  His  indignation,  to  destroy  the 
whole  earth.  Howl  ye,  for  the  day  of  the  Lord  is  at 
hand  "  (xiii.  1—6).  And  yet  again,  in  the  second  chapter, 
the  prophet  connects  it  with  the  wickedness  and  pride  of 
Israel,  and  with  the  feeling  that  God's  vengeance  must  fall 
upomit :  "  The  land  is  full  of  idols  .  .  .  the  lofty  looks  of 
man  shall  be  humbled  .  .  .  for  the  Lord  hath  a  day  upon 
every  one  that  is  proud  and  lofty  "  (ii.  11—12).     And  other 


880   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

propliets  connect  it  with  otlier  great  movements  in  the 
world,  in  whicli  Jehovali's  presence  was  conspicnously 
seen. 

These  prophets  moved  much  amidst  presentiments.  It 
was  mainly  moral  necessities  that  they  spoke  of.  They 
had  a  finer  sensihility  tlian  others  to  detect  the  currents 
of  things.  Their  hearts  were  full  of  certain  issues,  and 
they  were  constantly  looking  for  them,  although  the  exact 
time  of  their  coming  was  hid  from  them.  And  as  one 
in  the  darkness  thinks  he  hears  the  approach  of  an  evil 
which  ho  dreads,  these  prophets,  when  the  sound  of 
Jehovah's  goings  was  more  distinctly  heard  than  usual, 
deemed  that  what  they  heard  was  the  warning  of  His 
coming  to  shake  terribly  the  earth.  This  was  not  a 
mere  subjective  feeling.  For  His  final  appearance  was 
closely  connected  with  these  manifestations  in  great  pro- 
vidences, as  the  outermost  ring  in  the  pool  is  but  the 
widening  of  the  innermost.  For  there  moves  a  current 
under  all  things,  bearing  them  on  its  bosom  towards  results 
affecting  all.  Often  its  motion  is  imperceptible.  But 
sometimes  it  receives  a  mysterious  quickening,  and  men 
become  conscious  w^iither  things  are  moving.  Every  wave 
that  runs  up  and  breaks  upon  the  shore  is  the  precursor 
of  the  full  tide ;  and  every  act  of  judgment  or  of  salvation 
is  a  premonition  of  the  day  of  the  Lord.  To  say  that 
this  frame  of  things  shall  never  reach  a  goal,  is  to  put 
God  out  of  it  as  effectually  as  to  say  that  it  never  began. 
But  it  shall  not  end  in  a  manner  which  cannot  be  guessed 
at.  It  sliall  end  on  the  lines  on  which  it  is  at  present 
moving.  And  the  ear  that  is  wakened  by  Jeliovah,  and 
sharpened  by  His  touch,  may  detect  in  the  sounds  of  any 
signal  providence  the  final  issue  of  things,  as  surely  as 
one  can  hear  the  full  tempest  in  the  first  drops  that  fall 
sharp  and  measured  upon  the  leaves  in  the  sultry  stillness 
of  the  air. 

A  distinction,  of  course,  must  be  drawn  between  the 
faith  of  the  prophets  and  their  presentiments.  Their 
expectation  of .  the  day  of  the  Lord  was  a  belief,  au  assur- 


NEARNESS    OF   THE    DAY  381 

ance,  as  mucli  as  our  own  ;  but  the  focliii;^^  tlioy  liad  about 
ilH  nearness  on  any  occasion  was  more  a  ])resentinient. 
It  is  somewhat  difficult  for  us  to  reabse  this  peculiar 
feeling  which  the  propliets  had  of  the  nearness  of  tlie  day 
of  tlie  Lord.  Yet,  perhaps,  it  is  not  really  so  difficult. 
The  prophets  wrote  and  spoke  usually  amidst  very  stirring 
scenes.  Great  events  were  passing  around  them.  It  is 
only,  speaking  generally,  amidst  convulsions  that  rend 
society  deeply  that  they  came  forward.  In  these  great 
events  about  them  they  felt  the  presence  of  Jehovah.  He 
was  nearer  than  before.  The  noise  of  falling  empires,  the 
desolations  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  the  revolutions  in  men's 
thoughts,  revealed  to  their  ear  His  footsteps ;  they  heard 
in  them  the  sound  of  His  goings.  God  was  so  near  that 
His  full  presence,  which  He  had  promised,  appeared  im- 
minent. Speedily  His  glory  would  be  revealed,  and  all 
flesh  would  see  it  together,  as  the  mouth  of  the  Lord 
had  said.  Thus  their  belief  in  the  nearness  of  the  Lord's 
coming  was  more  a  feeling  than  a  thought,  more  a  pre- 
sentiment of  their  heart — a  religious  presentiment — than  a 
mere  intellectual  calculation  of  time.  Still  the  feeling  was 
of  such  a  kind  that  we  cannot  imagine  them  thinking  His 
coming  could  be  long  deferred. 

(4)  Another  thing  follows  from  the  last  two  particulars. 
Though  the  '  day  of  the  Lord,'  as  the  expression  implies, 
was  at  first  conceived  as  a  definite  and  brief  period  of 
time,  being  an  era  of  judgment  and  salvation,  it  many 
times  broadened  out  to  be  an  extended  period.  From 
being  a  day  it  became  an  epoch.  This  arose  from  the  fact 
that  under  the  terms  day  of  the  Lord,  that  day,  or  that  time, 
was  included  not  only  the  crisis  itself,  but  that  condition 
of  things  which  followed  upon  the  crisis.  Frequently,  also, 
there  was  included  under  it  the  condition  of  things  that 
preceded  the  crisis.  Now  this  condition  of  things  that 
issued  in  the  day  of  the  Lord  was  frequently  one  of  some 
duration,  being  sometimes  a  calamitous  period  in  Israel's 
history,  and  sometimes  a  period  of  great  commotion  among 
the  nations.      The  drxy  is  usually  considered  a  period  when 


382        THE    THEOLOGY    OF    TPIE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

it  is  l^rous^ht  into  connection  witli  tlie  Messianic  a^-e  or 
identified  with  it.  Tlie  IMessianic  age,  as  we  observe  it, 
for  example,  in  Isa..  ii.,  tlie  prophecy  of  the  mountain  of 
the  Lord,  or  in  Isa.  xi.,  the  prophecy  of  the  shoot  out 
of  the  stem  of  Jesse,  is  a  period  entirely  homogeneous. 
There  are  no  occurrences  witliin  it.  It  is  the  perfect 
condition  of  Israel,  and  there  are  no  events  or  breaks 
within  it.  It  has  characteristics,  but  no  internal  develop- 
ment. It  is  a  period  of  light,  and  peace,  and  the  knowledge 
of  the  gl(jry  of  the  Lord  which  covers  the  earth.  But  it 
has  no  movement.  "  It  shall  come  to  pass  in  that  day," 
says  Zechariah,  "  that  the  light  shall  not  be  clear  and  dark, 
but  it  shall  be  day  only  .  .  .  not  day  and  night  .  .  .  but 
it  shall  come  to  pass  that  at  evening  it  shall  be  light " 
(xiv.  6).  Subsequent  revelation  has  broken  up  the  coming 
of  the  Messiah  into  a  coming  and  a  coming  again,  and 
intercalated  between  the  two  an  age  full  of  developments 
and  vast  changes.  But  the  prophets  embrace  all  in  one 
period,  over  which  there  hangs  a  Divine  light.  The 
characteristics  they  assign  to  the  Messianic  age  are  those 
characteristics  in  the  main  which  we  assign  to  the  age 
which  the  Second  Coming  shall  introduce.  These  charac- 
teristics are  the  result  of  the  first  coming  and  the  natural 
expansion  of  its  principles,  and  to  the  prophets  the  prin- 
ciples and  their  realisation  all  seem  condensed  into  one 
point.  But  in  tliis  way,  as  was  said,  the  day  of  the 
Lord  widens  out  into  a  period,  homogeneous,  no  doubt, 
but  extensive. 

(5)  Again,  the  condition  in  which  the  day  of  the  Lord 
leaves  the  external  world  is  variously  represented.  For, 
as  the  prophets  were  not  interested  in  giving  mere  pre- 
dictions of  external  events  or  conditions,  but  in  setting 
before  the  Church  the  moral  developments  and  issues  of 
the  kingdom,  it  sometimes  happens  that  they  bring  down 
these  issues  in  their  completed  form  upon  an  external 
condition  of  the  world  which  is  just  that  existing  in  their 
own  day.  There  is  a  perfection  and  realisation  of  moral 
principles ;  but  the  condition  of  the  world,  in  its  kingdoms 


TRANSFORMATION    OF    FARTH  383 

and  the  like,  remains  unchanged.  Tims  to  Micah  tlie 
Assyrian  still  exists  in  the  Messianic  age. 

But,  ordinarily,  this  is  not  the  case.  The  heathen 
monarchies  entirely  disappear.  The  lieathen  nations  are 
utterly  destroyed,  as  in  Joel ;  or  they  are  absorbed  into 
Israel,  as  in  most  of  the  prophets.  "  In  that  day  shall 
Israel  be  the  third  with  Egypt  and  with  Assyria :  when 
the  Lord  of  hosts  shall  say,  Blessed  be  Egypt  My  people, 
and  Assyria  the  work  of  My  hands,  and  Israel  Mine 
inheritance"  (Isa.  xix.  24,  25).  "Egypt  shall  be  a  desola- 
tion, and  Edom  a  desolate  wilderness  .  .  .  but  Judah 
shall  dwell  for  ever"  (Joel  iii.  19,  20).  "The  house  of 
Jacob  shall  be  a  fire  .  .  .  and  the  house  of  Esau  for 
stubble;  and  they  shall  devour  them  .  .  .  they  of  the 
south  shall  possess  the  mount  of  Esau ;  and  they  of  the 
plain  the  Philistines  .  .  .  and  Benjamin  shall  possess 
Gilead"  (Obad.  18,  19).  In  many  of  the  prophets  this 
conquest  of  the  world  by  Israel  is  through  the  religion  of 
Israel.  Many  nations  shall  say,  "  Come,  and  let  us  go  up 
to  .  .  .  the  house  of  the  God  of  Jacob ;  .  .  .  He  will  teach 
us  of  His  ways,  and  we  will  walk  in  His  steps  "  (Isa.  ii.  3). 
The  issue  is  the  same  in  all,  but  it  is  realised  in  many  dif- 
ferent forms. 

And,  finally,  in  many  of  the  prophets  what  is  declared 
is  not  only  a  great  change  upon  the  condition  of  the  earth, 
but  an  absolute  transformation.  An  order  of  things  wholly 
new  is  introduced  upon  the  world.  It  is  not  quite  certain 
what  that  prophet  quoted  both  by  Isaiah  and  Micah  means 
when  he  says  "  that  the  mountain  of  the  house  of  the  Lord 
shall  be  exalted  above  the  hills"  (Isa.  ii.  2;  Mic.  iv.  1); 
whether  he  speaks  of  real  physical  changes  on  the  face  of 
the  world,  or  uses  only  a  figure  to  express  religious  pro- 
minence. But  it  is  certain  that  the  prophet  Zechariah 
contemplates  physical  changes  when  he  says :  "  The  land 
shall  be  turned  into  a  plain  from  Crcba  to  Eimmon  south 
of  Jerusalem  :  and  it  shall  be  lifted  up,"  i.e.  elevated,  "and 
inhabited  in  her  ]»lace,  from  Benjamin's  gate  unto  the 
place  of  the   first  gate";  and  so  on  (Zech.  xiv.  10).      But 


384        THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

tlie  tiiinsforiuatioii  of  the  eartli  assumes  larger  proportions 
ill  many  of  the  propliets,  and  becomes  a  complete  trans- 
formation of  all  things.  There  is  not  so  niiicli  a  trans- 
formation ■  as  a  transfiguration:  "Behold,  I  create  new 
heavens  and  a  new  earth,  saith  the  Lord"  (Isa.  Ixv.  17; 
cf.  iv.  2,  xi.  6-16,  etc.). 

As  the  prophets  are  mainly  interested  in  the  moral 
destiny  of  Israel,  there  are  two  characteristics  which  are 
always  announced  as  present  in  that  great  day  : 

a.  Israel  is  truly  the  people  of  God.  The  people 
shall  be  all  righteous.  Jehovah  dwells  in  Zion.  He  is 
Israel's  glory,  and  she  needs  no  more  the  light  of  the  sun 
and  moon.  He  makes  a  new  covenant  with  Israel,  and 
writes  His  law  upon  her  heart.  Sorrow  and  sighing  flee 
away.  The  Lord  rejoices  over  Israel  as  the  bridegroom 
over  the  bride.  Jerusalem  shall  be  holy  ;  the  uncircum- 
cised  and  the  unclean  shall  pass  through  her  no  more. 

h.  Israel  in  that  day  shall  be  fully  restored.  Ephraim 
shall  not  envy  Judah,  nor  Judah  envy  Ephraim.  Jehovah 
will  lift  up  a  signal  to  the  nations,  and  they  will  bring 
Israel's  children  from  afar,  and  plant  them  in  their  own 
land.  The  former  kingdom  shall  return,  and  all  the 
nations  on  which  Jehovah's  name  is  named  shall  be  again 
subject  to  Israel,  in  a  new  manner.  But  we  shall  have 
occasion  to  speak  of  this  again  when  considering  the 
Eestoration  of  Israel  in  itself. 

4.    The  Day  of  the  Lord  in  DPActero- Isaiah. 

So  much  importance  belongs  to  the  Second  Isaiah  in 
this  connection,  however,  that  it  is  necessary  to  look  more 
])articularly  to  the  conceptions  of  Redemjition  and  the  Day 
of  the  Lord  which  appear  in  that  great  section  of  prophecy. 
Something  has  been  said  of  the  day  of  the  Lord  as  the  idea  J 
is  represented  in  most  of  the  prophets.  The  prophet  whom 
we  shall  now  specially  consider  does  not,  I  think,  use  this 
expression,  but  the  idea  is  present  to  him  when  he  says : 
"  The  Lord  God  cometh  in  might,  His  arm  ruling  for  IlinL 


JEHOVAH    AND    MESSIAH  385 

]^»chold,  ITis  reward  is  willi  Him,  and  His  recompense  before 
Him  (xl.  10).  "The  glory  of  tlie  Lord  shall  be  revealed, 
and  all  Hcsli  sliall  sec  it  lo«;\'tlier  "  (xl.  5).  And  the  issue 
of  Jeliovah's  coming  sliall  bo  that  He  will  "feed  His  flock 
for  ever,  like  a  slie])]iord."  And  in  another  passage  (xlii. 
lo-17):  "  Tlic  Lord  sliall  go  forth  as  a  mighty  man; 
He  shall  stir  up  ardour  as  a  man  of  war.  ...  I  have  too 
long  hoi  don  my  peace,  now  will  I  cry  out  like  a  travailing 
woman.  I  will  make  waste  mountains  and  hills  .  .  .  and 
I  will  lead  the  blind  by  a  way  that  they  know  not  .  .  . 
they  shall  be  turned  back  and  ashamed  that  trust  in  graven 
images."     See  also  the  splendid  passage  in  lix.  16,  etc. 

We  have  seen,  then,  that  it  was  Jehovah  who  was  the 
Saviour  of  His  people,  and  that  this  salvation  consisted 
in  His  coming  to  them  in  His  fulness ;  for  then  was 
fulfilled  the  idea  of  the  covenant,  that  He  should  be 
their  God  and  they  His  people.  It  is  remarked  by  Franz 
Delitzsch  that  it  is  always  Jehovah  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  not  the  Messiah,  that  is  the  Saviour  of  the  people.  The 
remark  is  true ;  and  it  is  a  truth  profoundly  important 
when  we  consider  it  in  connection  with  Messianic  state- 
ments in  the  Old  Testament.  We  find  that,  though 
Jehovah  alone  is  Saviour  of  His  people,  and  though  the 
salvation  is  often  represented  as  realised  in  His  coming  in 
person  in  the  day  of  the  Lord,  this  is  not  always  the  case. 
Sometimes  He  comes  not,  so  to  speak,  in  person  or 
independently,  but  in  a  presence  manifested  in  the 
Messianic  King;  and  in  such  cases  there  is  no  additional 
presence  of  Himself  in  person.  This  elevates  His  presence 
in  the  ]\Iessiah,  and  the  Messiah  in  whom  He  is  present,  to 
a  very  lofty  significance.  It  may  be  doubtful,  as  we  have 
already  observed,  if  the  Old  Testament  went  so  far  as  to 
identify  the  Messiah  with  Jehovah,  or  to  represent  the 
Messiah  as  Divine.  It  went  the  length  of  saying,  however, 
that  Jeliovah  would  be  present  in  His  fulness  in  the 
Messiah,  so  that  the  Messiah  might  fitly  be  named  MJod 
with  us,'  and  '  Miglity  God.'  It  is  thus  just  the  very  idea 
that  Jehu  vail  alone  is  the  Saviour  of  His  people  that 
25 


386        THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

makes  this  representation,  viz.,  that  He  saves  them  in  His 
presence  in  the  Messiah,  so  remarkable,  and  elevates  the 
Messianic  conception  to  so  high  a  level.  It  was  not  a 
*»-<lifficult  step  to  take,  to  infer  that  the  Messiah  was  Himself 
God,  and  that  because  He  was  God  He  was  Saviour ;  and 
then  to  apply  even  those  passages  which  speak  of  Jehovah's 
coming  in  person  to  His  coming  in  the  Messiah. 

We  have  seen  also  that  each  of  the  prophets  represents 
the  day  of  the  Lord  as  arising  out  of  the  condition  of  the 
people  of  God  and  of  the  world  in  his  own  day,  and  there- 
fore as  near.  Isaiah,  for  instance,  in  his  first  discourse 
(chaps,  ii.— iv.)  represents  the  day  of  the  Lord  as  a  moral 
necessity,  to  humble  the  pride  and  to  chastise  the  sin  of 
men  of  his  day.  Again,  in  chap.  xiii.  it  is  repreeented  as 
following  the  convulsions  of  the  nations  which  were  to 
issue  in  the  downfall  of  Babylon.  The  chapters  we  are  now 
considering  represent  it  in  the  same  way  as  following  on  the 
conflict  of  Cyrus  with  the  idolatrous  kingdom.  Probably 
it  is  not  too  much  to  say  that  all  students  of  prophecy 
now  acknowledge  that  this  peculiar  mode  of  representation 
characterises  the  prophets.  It  was  not  so,  however,  with 
scholars  of  older  date,  such  as  Hengstenberg.  That  re- 
doubtable Berlin  theologian  expressed  the  opinion  that 
the  prophets  and  psalmists  would  have  made  themselves 
ridiculous  by  cherishing  such  a  notion.  In  reply  to  this, 
Kurtz,  in  an  excellent  paper  on  the  "  Theology  of  the 
Psalms,"  remarked :  "  It  is  once  for  all  the  case  that  not 
only  the  subjective  hopes  of  the  pious  in  Israel  at  all  times 
conceive  the  time  of  the  Messianic  fulfilment  as  near,  but 
the  objective  prophecies  of  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Covenant 
so  represent  it " ;  and  he  adds,  "  and  so  it  is  in  the  New 
Testament ;  for  the  apostles  represent  the  advent  of  tlie 
Lord  as  near,  even  immediately  near." 

Perhaps  these  two  remarks  require  still  to  be  made  on 
the  term  Day  of  the  Lord.  One  is,  tliat  of  course  there  is 
no  such  thing  as  a  day  of  the  Lurd,  it  is  always  tlu  one 
day  of  which  the  prophets  speak.  It  is  a  great  religious 
conception,   in    the    minds   of    the   prophets,   of   unknown 


Jehovah's  coming  887 

antiquity ;  for  even  Amos  refers  to  the  conception  as 
having  aheady  been  corrupted.  The  day  of  the  Lord  is 
the  day  when  the  L(nd  Himself  comes,  manifesting  Himself 
in  His  fulness.  It  is  never  identified  with  plagues  or  con- 
vulsions ;  these  are  but  the  tokens  of  its  nearness,  or,  at 
most,  accompaniments  of  it.  "  The  sun  shall  be  turned 
into  darkness,  and  the  moon  into  blood,"  says  Joel,  "  before 
the  great  and  terrible  day  of  the  Lord  come"  (ii.  31). 
The  second  remark  is  this, — although  to  the  prophets, 
amidst  the  great  events  taking  place  around  them,  in  which 
they  saw  the  presence  of  Jehovah,  the  day  seemed  near ;  yet 
this  was  not  a  judgment  of  the  mind  so  nuich  as  a  surmise 
of  the  heart ;  it  was  not  an  intellectual  calculation,  it  was 
rather  that  they  threw  their  faith  and  their  hope  of  the 
coming  of  Jehovah  in  His  redemptive  fulness  into  the  events, 
and  His  coming  seemed  imminent.  I  make  such  suggestions 
in  explanation  of  this  peculiarity  on  the  part  of  the  pro- 
phets. I  am  doubtful  if  they  will  quite  satisfy  others,  for 
they  do  not  quite  satisfy  myself.  But  however  we  explain 
the  peculiarity,  its  existence  cannot  be  doubted,  and  it  is 
of  great  importance  in  interpretation. 

Another  tiling  which  appears  with  regard  to  the  day 
of  the  Lord  is,  tliat,  being  perfect  redemption,  a  condition 
of  full  reUgious  fellowship  with  the  Jehovah,  it  was  this 
religious  side  that  was  present  to  the  prophets  chiefly ;  and, 
having  a  presentiment  of  its  nearness,  they  often  bring  the 
perfect  kingdom  into  a  condition  of  the  world  such  as  they 
saw  in  their  own  time.  Of  course  it  need  not  be  said 
that  such  an  idea  as  tliat  which  we  call  *  heaven,'  an  abode 
of  the  saints  in  a  transcendent  spliere  different  from  tlie 
earth,  is  not  yet  an  idea  of  the  Old  Testament  revelation. 
The  perfect  condition  of  the  Church  was  not  to  be  realised 
by  translating  it  into  heaven,  to  be  with  (Jod  there,  but 
by  Jehovah  coming  down  to  be  with  men  here,  when  the 
tabernacle  of  (^od  was  with  men.  Ordinarily,/  however, 
the  prophets  conceive  the  earth  as  renewed  so  as  to  be  a 
fit  abode  for  God's  perfect  people :  and  sometimes  a  new 
heaven  and  a  new  earth  are  prophesied  of. 


7 


388   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

One  other  point  may  be  referred  to.  The  day  of 
the  Lord,  or  His  coming  in  His  fulness  as  Redeemer, 
was  to  bring  perfect  redemption  to  His  people.  But  the 
question  arises,  what  did  the  prophets  understand  by 
redemption,  and  who  were  His  people  ?  We  must  always 
remember  the  condition  of  the  world  in  the  prophets'  days, 
because  redemption  was  conceived  as  coming  to  the  Church 
and  world  that  then  existed.  Now  the  people  of  God  in 
the  prophets'  days  was  Israel,  and  no  other.  And  redemp- 
tion in  that  day,  while  the  essence  of  it  was  the  same  as 
redemption  to  us,  namely,  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and 
the  perfect  fellowship  of  God  consequent  on  this,  was  not 
yet  conceived  as  consisting  exclusively  in  these  spiritual 
blessings ;  because  the  Church  of  God  was  a  people,  and 
a  local  dwelling  and  land  was  necessary  to  it.  And,  further, 
the  minds  of  men  in  those  days  were  not  able  to  realise 
to  themselves  that  they  possessed  the  favour  of  God,  and 
had  His  fellowship  and  were  His  people,  unless  they  had 
also  external  prosperity.  It  was  not  the  external  blessings 
themselves  that  they  coveted ;  but  these  external  blessings, 
possession  of  Canaan  and  the  like,  were  a  kind  of  sacra- 
mental sign  to  them.  They  were  seals  of  God's  forgiveness 
and  His  favour.  Hence  in  this  prophet  the  righteousness 
of  the  people  is  put  in  parallelism  with  their  salvation. 
This  righteousness  was  imputed  to  them  or  bestowed  on 
them  by  Jehovah,  but  they  were  able  to  realise  it  only 
when  it  was  manifested  externally  in  thek  restoration  and 
outward  well-being. 

Now,  keeping  these  few  points  before  our  minds,  we 
are  able  to  place  ourselves  in  the  circumstances  of  the 
prophet,  and  to  understand  his  construction  or  conception 
of  Bedemption,  and  how  it  was  to  be  effected. 

Throwing  ourselves  into  the  world  of  the  prophet, 
we  perceive  easily  the  phenomena  and  forces  which  made 
up  that  world.  These  were  Jehovah,  God  alone,  and  the 
false  gods ;  the  people  of  God,  in  bondage  to  that  mighty 
world-empire  of  P)al)ylon,  wliicli  was  but  an  incarnation  of 
its  own  idolatry ;  the  iiTesistible  career  of  Cyrus,  raised  up 


JEHOVAH  AND    CYRUS  389 

and  directed  by  Jehovah,  and  the  pro.stiation  of  the  idol- 
worship])ing  nations  before  him.  The  prophet  did  not  look 
on  these  things  as  otlier  men  did.  His  eye  saw  in  them 
what  he  brought  with  him  to  the  observation  of  them. 
He  animated  them  with  his  own  rehgious  faiths  and  hopes. 
The  external  conflict  became  to  him  a  conflict  of  princijJes, 
and  out  of  the  conflict  the  eternal  truth  rose  victorious ; 
the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  was  ushered  in, — the  kingdom  of 
Him  besides  whom  there  was  no  God,  no  Saviour. 

To  many  an  eye  the  world  might  have  seemed  only 
confusion,  and  it  did  fill  many  of  the  prophet's  contempor- 
aries with  despair.  They  shared  in  the  alarm  of  the  other 
nations  at  the  advance  of  Cyrus,  fearing  he  might  but 
forge  heavier  chains  for  them  than  those  that  now  bound 
them.  But  they  were  comforted  against  this  fear :  "  But 
thou,  Israel,  my  servant,  fear  not :  for  I  am  with  thee  ;  I  hold 
thee  by  the  right  hand  of  My  righteousness"  (xli.  8—10). 
They  were  faint-hearted :  "  Why,  when  I  am  come,  is  there 
no  man  ? "  (1.  2).  They  were  captious,  and  criticised  the 
ways  of  Jehovah  in  delivering  them :  "  Woe  to  him  that 
striveth  with  his  Maker !  "  (xlv.  9).  But  though  to  many 
minds  in  Israel  all  things  might  appear  in  confusion,  they 
could  not  appear  so  to  a  prophet  of  the  Lord.  It  was  a 
great  Divine  drama  that  was  being  played,  complicated  and 
extended,  and  only  a  prophet  could  foresee  how  it  would 
develop  itself.  He  could  foresee,  because  to  his  mind  the 
principal,  or  rather  the  only  actor  was  Jehovah  Himself ; 
and  he  knew  beforehand  what  He  was  and  what  His 
purjwses  were :  "  Look  unto  Me,  and  be  ye  saved,  all  the 
ends  of  the  earth :  for  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else  " 
(xlv.  22).  The  thought  of  Jehovah,  like  the  morning  liglit 
breaking  into  the  darkness,  turns  to  the  prophet's  view 
the  confusion  into  order.  Under  his  eye  there  starts  and 
proceeds,  step  by  step,  the  evolution  which  ushers  in  the 
kingdom.  This  evolution  has  two  sides,  an  outer  and  an 
inner ;  but  the  power  moving  and  operating  in  l)oth  is 
Jehovah. 

The    outward    evolution    is   the    career   and   work   of 


390   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

Cyrus.  This  Cyrus,  who  was  spreading  consternation  among 
the  heathen,  treading  down  kings,  and  exciting  terror  even 
in  the  breasts  of  the  captives,  was  the  '  anointed '  of 
Jehovah,  whom  He  had  raised  up,  and  who  was  come, 
obedient  to  His  bidding ;  and  His  raising  him  up  was  not 
a  mere  display  of  power,  but  a  great  operation  within  the 
sphere  of  redemption :  "  I  have  raised  him  up  in  righteous- 
ness :  he  shall  build  my  city,  and  let  go  my  captives  "  (xlv. 
13).  Other  prophets  had  spoken  of  heathen  conquerors  as 
Jehovah's  instruments.  The  Assyrian  was  the  '  rod  of  His 
anger '  (x.  5)  to  chastise  His  people  in  early  times ;  and 
later,  in  Jeremiah,  the  Lord  speaks  of  "  My  servant 
Nebuchadnezzar"  (xliii.  10). 

But  in  two  particulars  this  prophet  goes  beyond  others : 
first,  in  the  great  scope  of  the  task  which  he  assigns  to 
Cyrus,  which  is  to  crush  the  heathen  world-power,  and 
thereby  abolish  idolatry  ;  and  to  set  the  Lord's  captives  free 
and  build  His  temple,  that  the  law  might  go  forth  from 
Zion  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem ;  and, 
second,  in  the  intimacy  with  Jehovah  Himself  into  which 
he  brings  the  Persian  hero.  Cyrus  is  no  mere  instrument, 
as  the  Assyrian  was,  to  be  flung  away  or  broken  in  pieces 
like  a  rod  when  God's  purpose  was  served  with  it.  Cyrus 
is  the  anointed  of  the  Lord,  whose  right  hand  Jehovah 
holds  (xlv.  1),  whom  He  even  '  loveth '  (xlviii.  14),  whom 
He  called  by  name  when  he  did  not  know  Him,  and  who 
shall  even  call  on  His  name  (xli.  25);  and  whom  He  has 
raised  up  with  the  widest  purpose,  even  tliat  men  may 
know  from  the  rising  of  the  sun  and  from  the  west  that 
there  is  "  none  l)eside  Me "  (xlv.  6).  These  passages 
suggest  one  of  the  most  interesting  questions  that  these 
prophecies  raise,  the  question,  what  thoughts  the  prophet 
had  of  the  religion  of  Cyrus,  and  whether  he  entertained 
the  hope  that  the  king  might  be  won  over  to  the  religion 
of  Jehovah.  No  tliouglit  was  too  lofty  or  too  wide  for 
the  prophet  in  tlie  passion  of  enthusiasm  which  the  vision 
of  a  restored  nation  and  a  regenerated  world  raised  within 
him.     And,  obviously,  if  such  a  thought  occurred  to  him, 


THE   LIGHT   OF   THE   GENTILES  391 

it  would  facilitate  to  Iiis  mind  the  solution  of  the  problem 
that  attracted  his  thoughts,  namely,  how  tlie  nations  could 
be  gained  over  to  the  true  faith  and  l)ocome  tlie  kingdoms 
of  the  Lord. 

In  this  way  what  might  be  called  the  external  frame 
of  the  prophet's  conception  of  the  universal  kingdom  of  the 
Lord  was  set  up, — the  idolatrous  empire  was  laid  low,  the 
idols  demonstrated  to  be  vanity  (xli.  29),  those  that  served 
graven  images  were  turned  back  and  put  to  shame  (xlii. 
17) ;  and,  on  the  other  side,  the  ransomed  of  the  Lord  were 
restored  to  Zion  with  everlasting  joy  upon  their  heads 
(li.  11),  and  Israel  saved  with  an  everlasting  salvation 
(xlv.  17).  Such  language,  however,  is  proof  enough  how 
ill  suited  such  a  phrase  as  '  external  frame '  is  to  express 
the  prophet's  conception.  The  work  of  Cyrus  was,  in 
truth,  the  work  of  Jehovah.  Its  whole  meaning  to  the 
prophet  lay  in  its  being  a  religious  work, — a  great  stride 
taken  by  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  towards  its  full  victory 
over  all  that  was  evil  and  false.  Notliing  could  demon- 
strate how  entirely  all  the  prophet's  interests  are  religious 
so  much  as  his  eagerness  to  bring  Cyrus,  the  great  agent 
in  Jehovah's  work,  himself  into  true  and  personal  relations 
with  the  Eedeemer  of  Israel,  and  God  over  all. 

But  there  is  also  a  process  of  internal  evolution 
needful  to  realise  the  perfect  kingdom  of  the  Lord. 
The  prophet's  idea  is  complete ;  he  has  comprehended 
the  problem  in  all  its  details.  The  work  of  Cyrus  in  the 
world  only  overthrows  the  idol-serving  empire,  and  eternally 
discredits  the  idols  and  the  idolaters.  The  nations  are 
not  thereby  enlightened  in  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God, 
and  right.  It  is  the  mission  of  the  Servant  of  the  Lord  to 
bring  forth  right  to  the  nations,  and  the  countries  shall 
wait  on  his  instruction.  Not  to  raise  the  question  of  the 
Servant  here,  whether  he  be  Israel  or  another,  when  the 
prophet  says  in  xlii.  6  and  xlix.  6  that  the  Servant  shall 
be  "  the  light  of  the  Gentiles,"  and  in  chap.  Ix.  says  of 
Zion  glorified,  "  Arise,  shine  .  .  .  the  Gentiles  shall  come 
to  thy  light,"  it  appears  manifest  at  least  that  his  idea  is 


392   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

that  the  Servant  shall  reach  the  Gentiles  only  through 
Israel  restored.  Any  missionary  enterprises  of  individuals, 
however  exalted,  could  scarcely  occur  to  the  prophet.  Like 
all  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,  he  operates  with  nations 
and  peoples.  And  if  the  nations  are  to  receive  light 
through  Israel,  it  will  be  through  Israel  again  a  people 
before  the  world's  eyes ;  just  as  the  Lord  goes  forth  from 
Zion,  and  the  word  of  the  Lord  from  Jerusalem.  And  this 
clearly  enough  shows  what  the  prophet  means  by  the 
Restoration.  It  is  no  return  of  a  few  or  many  exiles  from 
Babylon ;  it  is  the  reconstruction  of  the  people  in  its 
former  integrity. 

Delitzsch  (with  whom  Cheyne  agrees)  maintains  that 
the  covenant  which  the  Servant  makes  or  is,  is  made  with 
the  true  spiritual  Israel.  Of  course,  it  is  a  truism  that  the 
covenant  cannot  be  made  with  those  who  will  have  none 
of  it, — "  There  is  no  peace,  saith  my  God,  to  the  wicked  " 
(xlviii.  22).  But  the  language  which  the  prophet  uses 
when  he  speaks  of  the  Servant  as  a  "  covenant  of  the 
people,"  whose  mission  is  to  set  up  the  tribes  of  Jacob  and 
restore  the  preserved  of  Israel,  and  when  the  Lord  says : 
"  I  will  say  to  the  north.  Give  up  :  bring  My  sons  from  afar ; 
even  every  one  that  is  called  by  My  name"  {i.e.  belongs 
to  the  people  of  Jehovah)  (xliii.  6),  sufficiently  indicates 
the  extent  of  the  prophet's  hopes.  And,  speaking  expressly 
of  the  new  covenant,  the  Lord  says :  "  Ho,  every  one  that 
thirsteth,  come  ye  to  the  waters.  Incline  your  ear,  and  I 
will  make  an  everlasting  covenant  with  you  .  .  .  let  the 
wicked  forsake  his  way,  and  the  unrighteous  man  his 
thoughts :  and  let  him  return  unto  the  Lord,  and  He  will 
be  gracious  "  (Iv.  1—7).  This  language  shows  the  extent  of 
the  covenant,  and  that  the  prophet's  hopes  were  the  same 
as  those  of  the  Apostle  Paul :  "  And  so  all  Israel  shall 
be  saved"  (Eom.  xi.  26).  But  this  restoration  of  the 
l)oople  could  not  take  place  apart  from  the  true  condi- 
tions of  it :  "  Let  the  wicked  forsake  his  way,  and  .  .  . 
let  him  return  unto  the  Lord,  and  He  will  be  gracious." 
To  the  prophet's  mind,  Israel's  exile  and  afflictions  were 


THE  SERVANT  A  COVENANT  OF  THE  PEOPLE   393 

due  to  its  sin,  and  its  restoration  must  be  preceded 
by  its  repentance  and  forgiveness.  This  forgiveness  it 
mediated  through  the  sufferings  of  the  Servant  of  the 
Lord.  But  it  is  he  also  who  kindles  within  Israel 
the  glow  of  a  new  faith  in  Jehovah,  which  secures  their 
spiritual  unity,  and  thus  leads  to  their  restoration.  But 
here  again,  if  we  would  observe  the  prophet's  thoughts,  we 
shall  find  that  he  attributes  all  to  Jehovah.  He  called  the 
Servant  in  righteousness,  and  took  hold  of  his  hand,  and 
will  kee])  him,  and  make  him  a  covenant  of  the  people,  a 
liglit  of  the  Gentiles  (xlii.  G) :  "  Beliold  my  servant,  wliom 
I  keep  hold  of;  I  will  put  My  spirit  upon  him"  (xlii.  1). 
"  For  the  Lord  God  will  help  me ;  therefore  have  I  set  my 
face  like  a  flint,  I  know  that  I  sliall  not  be  ashamed.  He 
is  near  that  justifieth  me ;  wlio  will  contend  with  me  ? " 
(1.  7,  8). 

Deferring  reference  to  the  Servant's  atoning  sufferings 
for  the  present,  I  may  notice  three  passages  which  describe 
the  Servant's  operation  and  methods.  The  first  is  in 
chapter  xlix.,  which  shows  that  the  Servant  also  operates 
in  the  direction  of  restoring  Israel ;  it  is  not,  however,  in  an 
external  way,  like  Cyrus,  but  by  awakening  a  new  faith 
and  a  new  spirit  in  the  scattered  exiles.  For  this  is  even 
more  necessary  than  the  external  interposition  in  their 
behalf  of  Cyrus.  Jehovah  thus  speaks  to  the  Servant :  "  I 
will  preserve  thee,  and  make  thee  a  covenant  of  the  people, 
to  raise  up  the  land,  and  make  them  inherit  the  desolate 
heritages ;  to  say  to  them  that  are  bound.  Go  forth  ;  to 
them  that  are  in  darkness,  Show  yourselves.  They  sliall 
feed  by  the  ways ;  they  shall  not  hunger  nor  thirst,  neither 
shall  the  sun  smite  them.  I  will  make  all  my  mountains 
a  way.  Lo,  these  shall  come  from  far  :  and  these  from  the 
north  and  from  the  west ;  and  these  from  the  land  of 
Sinim"  (xlix.  8—12).  Two  things,  surely,  are  made  evident 
by  such  a  passage :  first,  that  the  Servant  is  a  contem- 
porary of  the  Exile  and  that  the  land  is  desolate,  seeing  he 
helps  to  its  repopulation  ;  and,  second,  that  the  imperative 
condition  of  the  people's  restoration  is  their  repentance  and 


o94   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

new  faith,  which  the  Servant  pi'(Hhices  in  tlieir  minds:  "I 
will  make  tliee  a  covenant  of  the  people,  in  order  to  i-aise 
up  tlie  land ;  to  make  them  inlierit  the  desolate  heritages." 

The  second  passage,  showing  the  general  method  of  the 
Servant's  operation,  is  the  one  previously  quoted  in  chap.  1. : 
"  The  Lord  Jehovah  hath  given  me  the  tongue  of  disciples, 
that  I  may  know  how  to  comfort  with  words  him  that  is 
weary :  He  wakeneth  mine  ear  morning  by  morning  to 
hear  as  the  disciples.  He  opened  mine  ear,  and  I  was  not 
rebellious.  I  gave  my  back  to  the  smiters :  I  hid  not  my 
face  from  shame  and  spitting.  For  I  knew  that  I  shall 
not  be  ashamed.  .  .  .  He  is  near  that  justifieth  me " 
(1.  4—8).  Here  the  Servant  sets  forth  these  three  things : 
(a)  his  consciousness  of  having  the  true  word  of  the  Lord, 
and  his  acceptance  of  the  mission  entrusted  to  him  as 
having  it ;  (b)  the  inevitable  sufferings  in  the  work  of  the 
Lord, — he  who  is  Servant  of  the  Lord  will  suffer ;  and 
(c)  his  invincible  faith,  founded  on  Jehovah's  help ;  and 
the  assurance  that  through  Jehovah  he  shall  yet  succeed. 
To  this  passage  should  perhaps  be  added  the  beautiful  one 
in  chap.  Ixi.  1 :  "  The  Spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me.  He 
hath  anointed  me  to  preach  glad  tidings  to  the  meek," 
etc. 

The  third  passage  I  shall  cite  is  in  chapter  xlii.  1  ff., 
describing  the  Servant's  bearing  and  method  with  the 
Gentiles :  "  Behold  My  Servant.  I  will  put  My  spirit 
upon  him :  he  shall  bring  forth  judgment  to  the  Gentiles. 
He  shall  not  strive,  nor  cry.  The  bruised  reed  he  shall 
not  break :  he  will  bring  forth  judgment  to  the  Gentiles ; 
and  the  isles  shall  wait  on  his  instruction."  The  only 
instrument  which  the  Servant  employs  is  the  word  of  the 
Lord.  This  word  is  powerful,  because  it  is  not  a  mere 
dead  letter ;  the  Lord  Himself  is  in  it :  "  For  as  the  rain 
Cometh  down,  and  the  snow  from  heaven,  and  returneth  not 
thither,  but  causeth  the  earth  to  bring  forth  seed  to  the 
sower,  and  bread  to  the  eater  ;  so  shall  My  word  be  :  it  shall 
not  return  to  me  void,  but  shall  accomplish  that  which  I 
please.     For  ye  shall  go  out  with  joy,  and  be  led  forth  with 


REDEMPTIVE    RIGHTEOUSNESS  395 

peace"  (Iv.  10,  11  ;  coiup.  li.  IG).  The  Servant  does  not 
so  much  wield  the  word  of  God,  lie  is  rather  an  impersona- 
tion of  it :  "  ITo  made  my  moiitli  a  sliar])  sword  ...  He 
made  me  a  polished  shaft,  and  said  unto  me.  Thou  art  My 
Servant"  (xlix.  2).  The  Servant  is  the  word  of  the  Lord 
incarnate  in  the  seed  of  Abraham. 

But  thus  the  prophet's  construction  is  complete.  Je- 
hovah, God  of  Israel,  is  God  alone.  Being  so,  the  nations 
are  related  to  Him  no  less  than  Israel.  As  the  one  true 
God,  He  must  reveal  Himself  to  all  men,  and  destroy  their 
confidence  in  tliat  which  is  no  God,  no  Saviour :  "  My  glory 
will  I  not  give  to  another  "  (xlii.  8).  To  Him  every  knee 
shall  bow.  Yet  though  God  over  all.  He  stands  in  a 
special  relation  to  Israel.  This  relation  is  now  about  to 
be  manifested  through  His  Servant.  He  will  turn  the 
hearts  of  His  people  to  Himself,  and,  gathering  them  from 
all  lands,  will  appear  in  His  glory  among  them.  And 
through  them,  thus  restored.  His  relation  to  all  mankind 
will  also  be  manifested :  His  Servant  will  bring  forth  right 
to  the  Gentiles,  the  nations  will  walk  in  Zion's  light,  and 
kings  come  to  the  brightness  of  her  rising. 

Much  more  might  be  said  of  this  prophet's  conception 
of  the  people  Israel  or  Jacob. 

5.  Redemptive  Righteousness  in  Deutero-Tsaiah. 

But,  passing  that  by,  it  will  be  enough  to  refer  to  his 
peculiar  use  of  the  word  righteousness  as  a  redemptive 
term.  There  are  three  terms:  (1)  the  verb  P^>';  (2)  the 
adjective  P'lV ;  and  (3)  the  two  nouns  P"!?  and  r\\m.  The 
word  *  righteous '  is  used  in  two  ways :  first,  in  a  juridical 
or  forensic  sense ;  and,  second,  in  an  ethical  sense.  The 
verb  is  almost  exclusively  used  in  the  forensic  sense,  to  he 
in  the  right,  with  the  idea  of  a  court  or  judge  in  the  back- 
ground ;  or  to  be  found  in  the  right, — as  our  Version  goes, 
to  \)Q  justified.  Naturally,  to  hQ  found  in  the  right  is  very 
near  to  be  jjvonounced  in  the  right.  Hence  Hiph.  to  find 
in  the  right,  pronounce  in  the  right,  or  justify.     Of  course, 


396   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

there  may  be  a  multitude  of  situations,  some  important 
and  otliers  less  so,  in  which  one  may  be  found  in  the  right 
or  justified ;  but  the  word  has  the  same  sense  everywhere, 
and  generally  it  is  used  in  the  sense  of  being  right  before 
God.  The  adjective  is  chiefly  used  in  the  ethical  sense. 
It  is  the  two  nouns,  however,  which  are  used  somewhat 
peculiarly  in  these  prophecies. 

The  word  '  righteousness '  is  used  both  of  Jehovah  and 
of  the  people. 

First,  in  relation  to  Jehovah.  The  word  is  used  in 
reference  to  all  His  redemptive  operations.  These  are 
done  '  in  righteousness,'  pnv3 ;  they  are  np^^f,  '  righteous- 
ness.' For  instance,  "  Who  raised  up  him  from  the  east, 
whom  'v  calleth  to  follow  it  ?  "  (xli.  2).  *'  I  have  called  him 
(Cyrus)  in  righteousness :  he  shall  rebuild  My  city,  and  let 
go  My  captives"  (xlv.  13).  And  of  the  people:  "But 
thou  Israel,  My  servant,  fear  not  ...  I  keep  hold  of  thee 
with  the  right  hand  of  My  righteousness  ...  all  they 
that  are  incensed  against  thee  shall  be  confounded "  (xli. 
10,  11).  And  again  of  the  Servant:  "I  called  thee  in 
righteousness,  and  took  hold  of  thy  hand,  and  will  keep 
thee,  and  make  thee  a  light  of  the  Gentiles"  (xlii.  6). 
And  frequently  Jehovah's  righteousness  is  put  in  parallelism 
with  His  salvation  :  "  My  righteousness  is  near ;  My  salva- 
tion is  gone  forth"  (li.  5).  "My  righteousness  shall  be 
for  ever,  and  My  salvation  to  all  generations "  (li.  8). 
And,  again,  the  people  are  represented  as  asking  of  Jehovah 
*  ordinances  of  righteousness,'  i.e.  deeds  of  salvation  on 
their  behalf  (Iviii.  2) ;  and  Jehovah's  righteousness  sustains 
him,  and  His  arm  brings  salvation  unto  him  (lix.  16). 

Now,  of  course,  we  must  not  identify  righteousness  with 
salvation.  Salvation  is  something  objective ;  it  is  a  con- 
dition in  which  the  Lord  puts  the  people,  including  restora- 
tion and,  what  precedes  that,  forgiveness  of  sins.  When 
righteousness  is  put  in  parallelism  with  salvation,  that 
word  also  has  a  certain  objective  sense,  meaning  deeds  or 
operations  which  are  illustrations  or  embodiments  ot  Je- 
hovah's righteousness,  or  a  condition  of  the  people  brought 


SALVATION   AS    RIGHTEOUSNESS  397 

about  by  Jehovah  operating  in  righteousness.  In  other 
words,  salvation  is,  so  to  speak,  the  clothing,  the  manifestation 
of  Jehovah's  righteousness.  So  we  have  it  in  the  reniaik- 
able  passage,  xlv.  21,  "a  righteous  God,  and  a  Saviour," 
where  the  two  expressions  are  identical  in  sense;  or  the 
p:)int  may  be  that  His  being  Saviour  is  the  necessary  con- 
sequence of  His  being  righteous.  Thus  salvation  is  a  result, 
a  manifestation  of  His  righteousness.      How  then  is  this  ? 

Now,  we  might  find  the  explanation  of  this  way  of 
regarding  salvation  as  rigliteousness  manifested  in  the 
relation  of  Jeliovah  to  Israel.  He  is  Israel's  God,  His 
covenant  is  with  Israel.  They  are  His  people ;  it  is  there- 
fore rigid  that  He  should  interpose  in  their  behalf.  He 
is  righteous  in  saving  them ;  and  of  course  He  is  also 
righteous  in  inflicting  vengeance  on  their  oppressors.  No 
doubt  this  conception  will  cover  a  number  of  the  passages. 
And  a  similar  idea  is,  that  Israel's  salvation  is  due  to 
Jehovah's  faithfulness,  i.e.  not  merely  to  His  word  or 
promise,  but  to  His  whole  relation  to  Israel  as  their  God. 

There  are  passages,  however,  which  this  idea  of  right- 
eousness merely  in  regard  to  His  covenant  with  Israel  will 
hardly  explain.  They  are  these :  xlii.  6,  where  He  says 
to  the  Servant,  "  I  called  thee  in  righteousness,  and  took 
hold  of  thy  hand  " ;  and  xlii.  21,  "  the  Lord  was  pleased  for 
His  righteousness'  sake  to  give  a  law  great  and  broad." 
Both  these  passages  refer  to  the  very  beginning  of  Jehovali's 
relation  with  Israel,  and  imply  that  even  the  initiation  of 
the  covenant  illustrated  His  righteousness.  And,  once 
more,  li.  5,  "  My  righteousness  is  near ;  My  salvation  is 
gone  forth,  and  Mine  arm  shall  rule  the  people ;  the  isles 
shall  wait  on  Me,  and  on  Mine  arm  shall  they  trust." 
Here,  not  the  salvation  of  Israel  only,  but  that  of  all 
mankind,  illustrates  or  embodies  the  righteousness  of 
Jehovah.  And  this  wider  expression  makes  it  question- 
able whether  we  were  right  in  explaining  even  those 
passages  which  spoke  of  Israel's  salvation  as  righteousness, 
merely  of  what  was  rigid  or  rigljteous  in  Jehovah  in  view 
of  His  relation  to  His  people. 


398   THE  THEOLOGY  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

Various  attempts  have  been  made  to  explain  this 
usage.  In  an  excellent  })aper  on  tlie  root  piv,  Kautzsch  ^ 
defines  '  righteousness '  to  be  conformity  to  a  norm ;  and 
in  his  exceedingly  good  treatise  on  the  theology  of  these 
chapters,  Kriiger^  defines  the  norm  in  this  case  to  be 
Jehovah's  will,  which  is  a  redemptive  will,  upon  the  whole. 
Hence  He  is  righteous  when  He  acts  along  the  line  of 
this  redemptive  will,  or  in  conformity  to  it ;  or,  in  other 
words,  according  to  His  redemptive  purpose. 

But  does  it  not  seem  that  these  definitions  are  rather 
abstract?  And  when  it  is  said  that  righteousness  is  con- 
formity to  a  norm,  is  not  that  either  false,  or  to  say  nothing 
more  than  that  righteousness  is  righteousness  ?  A  man 
would  not  be  righteous  who  habitually  lied,  though  he 
would  speak  according  to  one  norm  of  falsehood.  Is  there 
not  in  the  norm  'it!self  the  idea  of  righteousness  ?  Does  not 
the  existence  of  a  norm  imply  a  prior  judgment  as  to 
what  is  right,  and  the  norm  is  the  expression  of  this 
judgment  ?  Conformity  to  a  norm  is  not  righteousness 
unless  the  norm  be  right,  or  embody  righteousness.  Cor- 
respondence is  only  the  evidence  of  righteousness,  not 
righteousness  itself.  A  particular  act  or  general  conduct 
is  righteous,  because  it  is  an  instance  of  that  general  of 
which  the  norm  is  an  embodiment.  Therefore,  to  say  that 
Jehovah's  redemptive  acts  are  righteous  because  they 
are  in  correspondence  with  His  general  will,  which  is  a 
redemptive  will,  is  hardly  true ;  they  are  righteous  only 
because  that  redemptive  will  to  which  they  correspond 
is  righteous.  And  thus  we  come  back  to  the  question, 
why  are  *  a  righteous  God '  and  '  a  Saviour '  identical 
expressions  ?  * 

^  Die  Derivate  des  Stammes  p^!f  im  Altt.  Sprachgehrauch. 

2  Ussai  sur  la  Theologie  cCEsaie  4O-66,  ]mY  F.  Hermann  Kriiger.  Paris  : 
Fischbacher. 

^  From  what  appears  elsewhere,  we  gather  that  Dr.  Davidson's  answer  to 
tliis  question  was  that,  while  in  other  books  tlie  term  'righteous'  and  its 
cognates  convey  legal  ideas,  in  Second  Isaiah  at  least  tliey  express  the 
constancy  of  God's  purpose  regarding  Israel,  His  trustworthiness  in  all  His 
dealings  with  His  people,  even  in  His  chastisements. — Ed. 


PROPHETIC    VIEW    OF    HISTORY  399 

6.   General  Considerations  on  the  Eschatalogy  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

Oil  this  whole  sul)jcct  of  the  Eschatolo^L^y  of  the  Old 
Testament  the  following  remarks  may  also  be  made  with 
regard  to  its  rise,  its  development,  and  its  contents : 

(1)  It  is,  of  course,  now  a  commonplace  to  say  that 
Amos  taught  that  Jehovah  is  absolute  righteousness,  the 
impersonation  of  the  moral  idea  ;  that  moral  evil  alone  is 
sin ;  and  that  the  only  service  Jehovah  desires  is  a  right- 
eous life — although  Amos  also  teaches  that  Jehovah  is  good ; 
and  compassionate  (ii.  9,  vii.  1) ;  that  Hosea  represents 
Jehovah  as  unchanging  love,  which  no  ingratitude  of  His 
people  can  weary  or  alienate ;  and  that  to  Isaiah,  Jehovah 
is  the  transcendent  Sovereign,^.  \d  universal  Lord, — whose 
glory  fills  the  whole  earth, — the  mp  of  Israel.  Both  Hosea 
and  Isaiah  insist  much  on  the  inwardness  of  religion.  It 
is  a  state  of  the  mind,  a  prevailing  consciousness  of 
Jehovah.  The  want  of  this  consciousness,  insensibility  to 
the  Lord  the  King,  is  sin ;  and  it  is  the  source  of  all  sin, 
of  the  levity  of  human  life,  and  the  self-exaltation  both 
of  men  and  nations.  Further,  the  prophetic  ideas  form 
but  half  of  the  teaching  of  the  prophets ;  the  greater  half 
lies  in  their  own  life  and  personal  relation  to  God. 

(2)  Taken  as  a  whole,  the  prophetic  teaching  amounts 
to  the  full  ethicising  of  the  conception  of  Jehovah.  And 
the  moral  is  of  no  nationality ;  it  transcends  nationality, 
and  is  human.  The  righteous  God  is  God  universal,  over  all. 
The  principles  of  the  human  economy  have  at  last  clearly 
reflected  themselves  in  the  consciousness  of  the  prophets, 
and  human  history  is  seen  to  be  a  moral  process.  It  has, 
at  all  events,  a  moral  aim,  and  will  have  a  moral  result. 
The  universalism  of  the  prophetic  idea  of  God,  and  its 
influence  on  the  prophetic  notion  of  history,  is  most  clearly 
seen  in  Isaiah.  The  movement  of  the  prophetic  thought 
towards  the  universalistic  idea  of  God  may  have  been 
aided  l)y  the  eiitiaiice  of  the  universal  empires  of  Assyria 
and  Babylon  on  the  stage  of  history.     This  gave  tliem  a 


400   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

new  conception — that  of  the  world ;  and  it  created  a  new 
correlation — Jehovah  and  the  world. 

(3)  What  is  called  Eschatology, — the  doctrine  of  ra 
eaxara, — the  last  things,  the  final  condition  of  the  world, 
could  not  have  arisen  earlier  than  this.  The  idea  of  a 
final  condition  of  the  world  could  not  arise  apart  from 
a  general  conception  of  the  meaning  of  human  life  and 
history ;  and  what  suggested  the  meaning  of  human  history 
to  the  prophets  was  their  conception  of  the  moral  being 
and  the  universal  rule  of  Jehovah.  An  eschatology ;  a 
condition  of  final  result ;  a  condition  of  mankind  and 
the  world  at  the  end  of  Jehovah's  operations,  arose  very 
naturally. 

(4)  The  Old  Testament,  however,  is  what  might  be 
called  Theocentric.  Jehovah  operates ;  He  accomplishes 
all ;  and  He  finds  the  motives  of  His  operations  in  Him- 
self. Hence  the  final  condition  of  the  world  is  not  in 
the  Old  Testament  the  issue  of  a  long  ethical  development 
in  human  society,  ending  in  a  perfect  moral  world  or  king- 
dom of  righteousness  upon  the  earth.  The  final  condition 
is  rather  due  to  an  interposition,  or  a  series  of  interpositions, 
of  Jehovah.  These  interpositions,  of  course,  are  all  on 
moral  lines ;  in  the  interests  of  righteousness  they  are  to 
make  an  end  of  sin  and  bring  in  everlasting  righteousness, 
and  the  issue  is  a  kingdom  of  righteousness.  But  the  issue 
is  due  to  a  sudden  act,  or  a  sudden  appearance,  of  God,  and 
is  not  the  fruit  of  a  growth  in  the  hearts  of  mankind. 

(5)  It  is  not  enough,  however,  simply  to  say  that  an 
eschatology,  the  conception  of  a  final  condition  of  mankind, 
could  hardly  have  arisen  before  a  general  conception  of 
the  nature  of  the  human  economy,  or  at  least  of  those 
things  that  are  needful  to  man's  perfection  and  felicity, 
had  become  general.  There  is  the  question,  had  such  a 
conception  come  to  the  propliets  ?  Now  the  answer  to 
that  question  is,  that  the  meaning  of  human  history,  or  the 
understanding  of  its  tendency,  of  its  movement  towards  an 
eschatological  goal,  was  not  revealed  to  Israel  by  study 
of   the  life  of   mankind,  but  by  rolioction  on  the  nature 


THE   TWO    ESCHATOLOGIES  401 

of  God  as  revealed.  God  was  the  real  Maker  of  history. 
To  the  prophets  there  are  no  such  tilings  as  mere  events 
or  occurrences ;  all  events  are  animated,  so  to  speak,  with 
a  Divine  energy.  God  is  the  author  of  the  events,  and 
His  mind.  His  will,  or  His  purpose  is  in  them.  Hence, 
when  so  broad  a  view  as  that  of  human  life  or  history 
as  a  whole  is  taken,  it  is,  so  to  speak,  secondary.  It  is 
the  reflection  of  the  view  taken  of  (Jod,  of  His  being,  and 
therefore  as  an  inference  from  His  being,  of  His  purpose, 
and  of  what  the  issue  will  be  when  He  realises  His  pur- 
pose, or,  as  we  might  say,  when  He  realises  Himself  in 
the  history  of  mankind.  So  soon  as  the  etliical  being  of 
Jehovah  was  conceived,  and  His  oneness  as  God,  there 
could  not  but  immediately  follow  the  idea  also  that  human 
history,  which  was  not  so  much  under  His  providence  as 
His  direct  operation,  would  eventuate  in  a  kingdom  of 
righteousness  which  would  embrace  all  mankind. 

No  doubt  the  way  in  which  this  is  conceived  is  that 
this  kingdom  of  righteousness  is  first  realised  in  Israel,  and 
that  through  Israel  it  extends  to  all  mankind;  for  the 
nations  "  come  to  Israel's  light,  and  kings  to  the  brightness 
of  its  rising,"  this  light  being  the  glory  of  Jehovah  dwell- 
ing in  Israel  But  the  unity  of  God  creates  the  unity  of 
mankind. 

(6)  So  we  have  an  eschatology  of  two  kinds :  that  of 
the  kingdom,  and  that  of  the  individual.  The  former  is 
what  is  taught  concerning  the  perfection  of  the  nation  or 
people  of  Israel,  or  on  a  universal  scale  of  the  nations 
or  mankind;  and  the  latter,  so  far  as  the  individual  is 
considered  in  himself  as  distinct  from  the  people,  would 
constitute  the  doctrine  of  immortality.  But  one  of  the 
things  that  surprise  us  more  and  more  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment is  the  place  given  to  the  individual.  How  little  the 
individual  bulks  in  it,  how  greatly  the  individual  loses 
himself  in  the  community, — thinks  of  himself  always  as 
part  of  it,  has  liopes  for  himself  only  so  far  as  he  has  liopes 
for  his  people,  rare  or  true  individualism,  i.e.  the  in- 
dividual's consciousness  of  hiuisclf  in  relation  to  God,  and 
26 


402       THE  THEOLOGY   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

as  having  a  destiny  of  his  own  to  work  out  or  to  inherit 
out  of  all  relation  to  the  destiny  of  the  comnuinity,  and 
independent  of  all  other  men — this  kind  of  individuality 
appears  in  the  Old  Testament  only  in  a  few  great  instances. 


XIL  DOCTRINE  OF  THE  LAST  THINGS— 
IMMORTALITY. 

1.   Differences  in  Modes  of  Thought. 

In  much  of  the  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament,  as  we 
have  seen,  it  is  the  destinies  of  the  People  of  God  as  a 
people  that  are  specially  in  view.  But  there  is  the 
question  also  of  the  Individual,  and  what  the  Old  Testa- 
ment has  to  say  of  him.  This  comes  into  view  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Old  Testament  conceptions  of  sin,  death,  life^ 
and  immortality.  Very  much  of  what  is  taken  up  into  the 
Christian  doctrine  of  Immortality  appears  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  connection  with  what  is  said  of  the  People  or  the 
Kingdom  of  God,  especially  in  the  prophetic  teaching.  But 
there  is  much  more  than  that  in  the  New  Testament 
doctrine ;  and  in  the  Old  Testament  itself  there  is  an 
Eschatology  of  the  Individual  as  well  as  an  Eschatology 
of  the  Kingdom  or  People. 

In  entering  now  on  the  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament 
on  the  subject  of  a  Future  Life,  we  have  to  notice  certain 
matters  of  general  interest,  and  certain  broad  considera- 
tions which  have  an  important  bearing  on  the  view  we 
take  of  the  Old  Testament  position.  These  must  be  borne 
in  mind  if  we  are  to  understand  aright  the  Old  Testament 
conception  of  a  future  life. 

We  may  notice,  in  the  first  place,  the  point  which  has 
just  been  referred  to,  namely,  the  relation  of  the  Eschatology 
of  the  Individual  to  that  of  the  Kingdom  or  the  People. 
A  large  portion  of  the  contribution  which  the  Old  Testa- 
ment makes  to  Christian  Eschatology  is  derived  from  the 
Eschatology  of  the  Nation.      To  this  belong  such  points  as 


ESCHATOLOGY    OF    THE    NATION  403 

these:  (1)  tlie  manifestation  or  advent  of  God;  (2)  the 
universal  judgment  connected  witli  the  Day  of  the  Lord ; 
(3)  bcliind  this  judgment,  tlie  incoming  of  the  pei-foct 
kingdom  of  God,  when  all  Israel  shall  be  saved,  and  tlie 
nations  shall  be  partakers  of  their  salvation ;  (4)  the 
finality  and  eternity  of  this  condition,  that  wliich  con- 
stitutes the  blessedness  of  tlie  saved  people  l)eing  the 
presence  of  God  in  the  midst  of  them ;  (5)  the  form 
which  this  view  of  tlie  presence  of  God  Himself  (which 
corresponds  to  the  Christian  view  of  heaven)  takes  in  such 
Messianic  prophecies  as  Isa.  ix.  11,  etc.,  where  Jehovah 
is  represented  as  present  in  His  fulness  in  the  Messianic 
King. 

Now,  most  that  is  said  in  these  connections  is  said  of 
the  people  as  a  people.  The  people  is  immortal,  and  its 
life  eternal ;  and  this  life  is  conceived  as  lived  in  this 
world,  although  this  world  is  also  said  to  be  destined  to  be 
transfigured,  so  that  there  shall  be  a  new  heaven  and  a 
new  earth  (Isa.  Ixv.  17).  But  the  question  must  arise, 
Are  tlie  individuals  of  the  peo])le  immortal,  or  is  there 
only  an  immortality  of  the  people  as  a  people  ?  Is  the 
life  of  the  individuals,  however  prolonged  and  blessed,  yet 
finally  closed  by  death  ?  In  most  passages  the  prophets 
have  in  view  the  destiny  of  the  people  as  a  unity,  the 
ultimate  fate  of  individuals  not  being  present  to  their 
mind.  In  some  passages,  however,  the  destiny  of  the  in- 
dividual is  referred  to,  and  perhaps  a  progress  may  be 
observed. 

It  is  important  to  observe,  therefore,  how  the  Old 
Testament  ways  of  thinking  on  man's  future  differ  in  cer- 
tain respects  from  ours.  The  chief  difference,  perhaps,  lies 
in  this,  that  when  the  Old  Testament  speaks  of  immortality, 
eternal  felicity,  or  what  is  equivalent  to  heaven,  it  usually 
speaks  of  the  immortality  and  eternal  felicity  of  the  nation. 
This  immortality  and  felicity  shall  be  entered  upon  at  the 
manifestation  of  Jehovah  at  the  day  of  the  Lord  and  His 
judgment.  We,  on  the  other  hand,  think  of  the  individual 
and   immortality,  and   apply    the   latter   term   to   the  in- 


404        THE   THEOLOGY    OF   THE   OLD    TESTAMENT 

dividual's  destiny  after  death.  But  in  the  Old  Testament 
the  immortality  of  the  people  does  not  raise  the  question 
of  death.  There  is  a  change, — a  being  made  perfect,  an 
entrance  upon  a  new  age, — but  only  a  cliange. 

The  Old  Testament  position  appears  precisely  like  that 
which,  if  New  Testament  scholars  be  right,  was  the  early 
Christian  position — when  the  hope  of  the  Second  Coming 
continued  vivid.  This  Coming  would  change  the  world 
and  the  Church,  but  the  Church  would  pass  living  into 
perfect  blessedness.  And  of  course  individuals  would  share 
in  the  change — "  We  shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  all 
be  changed"  (1  Cor.  xv.  51).  Now,  this  was  very  like 
the  state  of  feeling  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  individual 
would  share  in  the  transition  of  the  community.  The  day 
of  the  Lord  would  break,  and  the  living  would  enter  into 
fulness  of  Ufe  without  tasting  death. 

Thus  the  greater  part  of  what  is  said  of  immortality  in 
the  Old  Testament  being  said  of  the  people,  death  is  not  a 
thing  referred  to  in  such  connections. 

But  even  when  the  individual  is  spoken  of,  or  is  the 
speaker,  his  hopes  may  be  connected  with  the  destinies  of 
the  people.  He  may  share  in  these, — entering  into  endur- 
ing blessedness,  without  seeing  death, — he  being  part  of 
the  people.  In  passages,  also,  in  which  this  is  implied, 
death  is  not  contemplated.  There  is  an  immortality,  a 
continuance  of  being,  which  does  not  pass  through  death  or 
arise  behind  it.  Now  that  the  Second  Coming  has  ceased 
to  be  a  vivid  part  of  Christian  faith,  and  death  is  looked 
on  as  the  inevitable  fate  of  us  all,  the  state  of  the  question 
becomes  somewhat  changed,  and  immortality  is  looked  at 
exclusively  as  something  involving  death. 

The  passages,  however,  in  the  Old  Testament  where 
death  is  contemplated  are  not  numerous,  because  the  hope 
of  the  nation  was  so  vivid,  and  this  hope  was  shared  in  by 
the  living  individuals. 

True  individualistic  h<^pe,  therefore,  is  expressed  only 
in  tliose  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  where  death  is 
contemplated, — where  it  seems  near  or  certain.     Then  the 


warburton's  view  405 

individual  person  is  cut  off  from  sharing  in  the  hope  and 
destiny  of  the  nation,  and  he  is  thrown  upon  liis  own 
individual  relation  to  God  to  sustain  him. 

Again,  it  has  always  been  felt  to  be  strange  that  the 
teaching  in  the  Old  Testament  regarding  immortality 
should  be  so  obscure,  or  at  least  so  indirect  and  inex- 
plicit. This  seems  not  only  strange  in  itself  when  the 
case  of  some  other  nations,  such  as  the  Egyptians,  is  con- 
sidered, in  whose  minds  questions  of  death  and  immortality 
occupied  so  prominent  and  engrossing  a  place ;  it  becomes 
doubly  strange  when  we  take  into  account  the  very  clear 
and  elevated  teaching  given  in  the  Old  Testament  regarding 
other  truths  of  religion,  and  the  true  conditions  af  living 
unto  God.  The  faith  in  a  future  life  is  so  important  a 
part  of  our  religion,  that  we  are  surprised  to  find  it  appear- 
ing with  so  little  explicitness  in  the  religious  thoughts  of 
the  Old  Testament  saints.  This  has,  indeed,  appeared  to 
some  writers — Warburton,  for  example  ^ — so  surprising,  that 
they  have  concluded  that  the  revelation  of  the  doctrine 
was  of  purpose  kept  back,  with  the  view  of  serving  some 
other  ends.  This  idea,  however,  belonged  to  the  time  when 
views  of  the  nature  and  methods  of  revelation  prevailed 
which  were  rather  artificial.  In  the  present  day  we  are 
more  inclined  to  conclude  that  the  methods  pursued  by 
revelation  were  simple,  and,  if  we  can  say  so,  natural ;  tliat 
is,  that  its  great  object  was  to  enable  men  in  each  age 
practically  to  live  unto  God,  and  that  at  all  times  it  gave 
them  light  sul!icient  for  tliis ;  but  that  on  other  subjects  it 
left  them  very  much  with  the  ideas  which  they  had. 

In  other  words,  it  took  men  as  it  found  them,  setting 
before  them  at  all  times,  and  in  each  successive  age,  what 
was  needful  that  they  might  walk  before  God  in  holiness 
and  righteousness,  and,  as  it  taught  them  this,  penetrating 
and  transforming  other  modes  of  thinking  on  many  non- 
essential matters  which  they  cheiiKlied.  If,  therefore,  we 
find  explicit  teaching  on  this  question  of  immortality  post- 
poned, we  may  infer  that  it  was  not  uii natural  that  it 
*  In  his  Divine  Lc(jation  of  31  ones. 


406        THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

should  be  so ;  that  there  was  something  in  the  ways  of 
thinking  on  the  part  of  the  people  which,  for  a  time  at 
least,  supplied  the  place  of  it,  or  at  all  events  made  it  not 
a  necessity  to  a  true  life  with  God  and  a  walk  before  Him 
in  righteousness.  And  we  may  perhaps  also  infer  that  at 
a  later  time  events  occurred  in  God's  providential  ruling  of 
the  history  of  the  people,  which  modified  their  former 
modes  of  thinking  to  such  an  extent  that  more  explicit 
statements  on  this  question  were  requisite,  and  so  when 
requisite  they  were  supplied. 

Again,  our  life  now  is  very  strongly  individual,  and  so  is 
our  religion.  Some  make  it  a  charge  against  Christianity, 
at  least  as  practised  and  lived,  that  it  is  too  individualistic, 
that  it  is  so  even  to  selfishness.  However  this  be,  it  cannot 
be  doubted  that  a  different  way  of  feeling  prevailed  in 
Israel.  The  individual  was  always  apt  to  lose  himself  in 
some  collective,  such  as  the  family,  the  tribe,  or  the  people. 
He  was  part  of  a  greater  whole,  and  felt  himself  to  have 
meaning  only  as  belonging  to  it.  This  is  perhaps  an 
Oriental  way  of  thinking ;  and  if  so,  revelation  in  some 
respects  accommodated  itself  to  it.  It  did  not  wage  war 
against  it,  but  left  the  positive  truth  which  it  gave  to  act 
upon  it,  and  gradually  disintegrate  and  dissolve  it.  The 
covenant  was  made  not  with  individuals,  but  with  the 
people.  The  prophets  address  their  oracles  to  the  State, 
to  the  leaders  and  rulers  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  It  is 
the  destinies  of  this  kingdom  that  they  pursue  out  to  the 
perfection  of  it.  The  individual  has  his  part  in  the  blessings 
of  the  kingdom,  but  he  has  it  as  a  member  of  the  people. 

This  conception  of  solidarity  and  the  repression  of  indi- 
vidualism are  considerations  always  to  be  kept  in  view  in 
judging  the  Old  Testament.  They  explain  many  things, 
and  give  a  different  colour  to  some  things  which  are  apt 
to  offend  us.  The  sweeping  away,  for  example,  of  the 
whole  family  and  dependents  of  a  man  along  with  himself 
because  of  his  sin  or  of!ence,  was  a  practice  due  to  this 
idea  of  solidarity.  The  children  and  dependents  were  not 
regarded  as  having  an  independent  existence  or  a  standing 


IDEA    OF   SOLIDARITY  407 

of  their  own.  They  were  part  of  the  fiitlier,  of  the  head  of 
the  family,  and  he  was  not  held  fully  punished  unless  all 
that  were  his  shared  his  fate.  Such  a  practice  would 
appear  now  to  us  an  immorality,  hecause  of  our  strong 
sense  of  the  independence  of  each  individual ;  but  from  the 
point  of  view  of  solidarity  then  prevalent  it  had  not  this 
aspect.  And  in  the  same  way  the  tendency  of  the 
individual  in  early  times  to  sink  himself  in  the  collective 
unity,  the  tribe  or  the  people,  helps  to  explain  what  seems 
to  us  the  defective  aspiration  of  the  individual  after 
immortality  or  life.  What  Jehovah  had  founded  on  the 
earth  was  a  kingdom  of  God.  This  was  eternal.  In  the 
days  of  the  King  Messiali  this  kingdom  would  be  universal, 
and  the  people  would  be  perfect.  And  the  individual  had 
his  immortality  in  that  of  the  theocracy.  His  great  interest 
was  in  it.  His  hopes  found  realisation  there.  His  labours 
were  perpetuated  in  it,  even  if  he  ceased  to  live.  He  saw 
the  good  of  Israel,  and  he  continued  to  live  in  the  fuller 
life  of  his  people.  But  this  immortality  of  his  hopes  and 
purposes  was  not  all.  In  his  children  he  continued  to 
live.  He  was  there  in  them ;  for  he  regarded  them  as 
himself,  furthering  God's  work  and  enjoying  His  favour. 
So,  too,  his  remembrance  was  not  cut  off — "  the  righteous 
shall  be  held  in  everlasting  remembrance "  (Ps.  cxii.  6), 
This  kind  of  feeling  is  illustrated  in  Isa.  Ivi.,  3,  where  the 
prophet,  encouraging  strangers  and  eunuchs  to  attach  them- 
selves to  the  new  community  of  the  Eestoration,  addresses 
the  latter :  "  Let  not  the  eunuch  say.  Behold,  I  am  a  dry 
tree."  The  feeling  of  these  persons  was  that,  having  no 
children,  they  would  have  no  permanent  place  in  the  com- 
munity, no  endless  share  in  the  kingdom  of  God.  To  them 
the  Lord  replies :  "  I  will  give  them  in  Mine  house  and 
within  My  walls  a  place,  and  memorial,  an  everlasting 
name  that  shall  not  be  cut  off"  (Ivi.  5).  The  passage  is 
a  pathetic  one ;  for  all  that  the  prophet  is  as  yet  able 
to  promise  the  individual,  however  high  the  worth  of  the 
individual  is  now  considered  to  be,  is  an  innnortality  in  the 
memory  of  God  and  of  men.     A  true  personal  immortality 


408   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

is  not   3"et  promised ;    not   lie,  but  liis  nieuKjry,  shall  be 
iinijiortal. 

Yet  it  must  be  acknowledged  that  here  lay  an  im- 
perfection which  could  not  but  be  felt.  This  kind  of 
immortality  in  the  perpetual  existence  of  the  kingdom  of 
God,  and  in  the  perfection  of  the  people  in  which  the  spirit 
of  the  individual  lived,  must  have  been  felt  by  the  man 
to  be  too  shadowy  to  satisfy  his  heart.  The  individual 
spirit  struggles  against  the  idea  of  being  poured  out  into 
the  general  stream  of  the  spirit  of  mankind  or  even  of  the 
people  of  God,  and  claims  a  place  for  itself.  And  this 
claim  will  be  the  more  resolutely  pressed  the  more  the 
individual  becomes  aware  of  his  ow^n  worth  and  of  the 
meaning  of  the  personal  life.  Now,  in  the  providential 
history  of  Israel,  the  time  came  when  the  State  or  people 
in  which  the  individual  was  apt  to  lose  himself  came  to  an 
end.  At  the  Exile  the  people  ceased  to  exist,  being 
scattered  into  every  land.  But  though  the  people  and 
State  had  disappeared,  Jehovah  their  God  remained,  and 
religion  remained,  and  there  remained  the  individuals  of 
the  nation ;  and  thus  all  that  significance  and  those 
responsibilities  and  hopes,  wdiich  belonged  to  the  people 
before,  were  now  felt  by  the  individual  to  belong  to  him. 
We  mio;ht  think  the  downfall  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah  a 
great  calamity,  yet  in  a  religious  sense  it  was  the  greatest 
step  towards  Christianity  taken  since  the  Exodus.  It  made 
religion  independent  of  any  locality;  it  showed  that  the 
people  of  God  could  exist  though  no  longer  in  the  form  of 
a  State  or  nation.  It  changed  the  religious  centre,  so  to 
speak,  making  it  no  more  the  conscience  of  the  people,  but 
the  conscience  of  the  individual.  Hence  in  a  prophet  of 
the  Exile  we  find  such  words  as  these :  "All  souls  are  Mine, 
saith  the  Lord  ;  as  the  soul  of  the  father,  so  also  the  soul  of 
the  son  is  IMine "  (Ezek.  xviii.  4).  To  each  individual 
spirit  the  Lord  stands  in  the  same  relation.  Naturally, 
when  this  stage  has  been  reached  the  craving  for  individual 
immortality  would  immediately  arise.  And  speedily  the 
idea  would  be  extended ;  even  the  dead  of  past  generations 


BELIEF    IN    RETRIBUTION  409 

would  be  drawn  in  nnder  the  general  conception.  They, 
too,  would  be  made  to  share  in  the  blcwings  of  the  perfect 
kingdom,  and  thus  faith  in  tlie  resurrection  also  would 
arise,  as  in  Dan.  xii. 

There  is  another  way  of  thinking,  common  now,  which 
makes  us  wonder  how  the  doctrine  of  a  future  state  could 
for  long  be  so  obscurely  stated  in  the  Old  Testament. 
We  wonder  how  morality  and  religion  could  exist  without 
the  support  of  those  eternal  sanctions  supplied  to  the  mind 
in  the  faith  of  a  future  retribution.  Now  the  difference 
between  our  way  of  thinking  and  that  prevalent  for  long 
at  least  in  Israel,  does  not  lie  in  any  difference  as  to  belief 
in  retribution.  It  Hes  here.  We  may  relegate  this  retribu- 
tion to  a  future  world ,  Israel  believed  that  it  prevailed 
fully  now  and  was  seen  in  this  world.  The  universal  faith 
of  the  people  is  compressed  in  Prov.  xi.  31  :  "  Beliold,  the 
righteous  shall  be  recompensed  on  the  earth ;  nmch  more 
the  ungodly  and  the  sinner."  Or  as  it  is  in  the  1st  Psalm. 
To  our  minds  now  the  anomalies  of  providence  bulk  much 
more  largely  than  they  did  to  early  Israel  at  least.  We 
may  detect  general  principles  in  providence,  we  may  see 
the  direction  the  movement  pursues ;  it  may  in  a  general 
way  plainly  make  for  righteousness,  but  there  are  many 
hindrances,  and  the  current  is  often  hemmed,  and  to 
appearance  even  turned  aside.  But  in  the  early  literature 
of  Israel  such  a  feeling  hardly  appears.  Even  in  the  Book 
of  Proverbs,  a  book  occupied  almost  exclusively  with  the 
doctrine  of  providence,  with  God's  rule  of  man's  life,  there 
seems  to  be  hardly  one  complaint  regarding  any  anomaly  of 
providence,  any  hardship  or  infelicity  to  the  righteous  or 
any  prosperity  or  felicity  to  the  wicked.  In  later  books, 
such  as  Ecclesiastes  and  Job  and  some  Psalms,  complaints 
are  abundant.  But  in  the  earlier  literature  the  faith  in  an 
inflexible  retribution  in  this  life  prevails.  This,  indeed,  may 
be  said  to  be  just  the  essence  of  the  prophetic  teaching — 
balanced  or  tempered,  of  course,  by  God's  enduring  mercy 
and  His  purpose  of  grace,  which  nothing  could  frustrate,  and 
towards  which  even  His  righteousness  in  retribution  worked. 


410   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

It  may  be  made  a  question  how  tliis  very  stringent  doc- 
trine of  retribution  in  this  life  arose.  It  is  probably  due,  as 
almost  all  other  doctrines  are,  to  the  very  powerful  theism 
of  Scripture  and  of  the  people.  God  was  all  in  all.  Events 
were  all  His  work,  and  all  immediately  His  work.  All  the 
changes  on  the  earth  and  in  life  were  but  the  effects  of  an 
unseen  power  operating  within  all  things.  And  this  God 
was  righteous,  and  His  rule,  therefore,  in  each  particular 
event  a  display  of  His  righteousness.  As  there  was  one 
God,  there  was  one  world.  His  rule  prevailed  alike  every- 
wliere.  The  universe  was  a  moral  constitution.  The 
physical  had  no  meaning  in  itself ;  it  was  but  the  medium 
for  the  manifestation  of  the  moral.  Thus  that  sphere 
where  retribution  finds  full  realisation,  and  which  we  liave 
learned  to  transfer  to  some  transcendental  state,  early 
Israel  found  to  exist  in  this  present  world.  Sin  was 
punished  and  righteousness  rewarded.  There  was  no 
anomaly  here.  The  anomaly  was  the  existence  of  evil,  and 
that  it  was  permitted  to  continue,  and  not  finally  purged 
away.  Yet  this  condition  was  but  temporary,  and  would 
terminate  soon  ;  it  might  terminate  at  any  moment.  The 
day  of  the  Lord  might  break  on  the  generation  tlien  living 
The  glory  of  the  Lord  would  be  revealed,  and  all  flesh 
would  see  it  together.  He  would  come.  His  arm  ruling 
for  Him,  His  reward  with  Him,  and  His  recompense 
before  Him.  He  would  perform  His  short  work  on  the 
earth. 

Of  course,  here  again,  in  this  idea  of  a  retributive  rule 
of  God  on  earth,  there  was  an  imperfection,  and  the  feeling 
of  it  led  to  further  developments.  In  the  early  and  happy 
condition  of  the  kingdom  and  society  the  well-being  of  the 
righteous  might  seem  realised,  and  under  good  government 
the  wicked  might  be  cut  off.  The  law  of  retribution  had 
effect.  Yet  later,  when  the  State  be^ian  to  stai^i^er  under 
the  blows  dealt  it  from  al)road,  and  when  morals  within 
became  dissolute,  tlie  faitli  in  a  perfect  retributive  rule  of 
providence  in  tliis  world  would  receive  rude  sliocks.  Tlie 
fall  of  the  State,  indeed,  was  its  most  perfect  illustration 


LACK    OF    CLEARNESS    IN    THE    DOCTRINE         411 

when  the  State  was  considered  as  a  moral  i)erson, — as  the 
prophets  from  Ilosea  downward  consider  it.  But  in  the 
disastrous  time  tliat  followed  it  was  just  the  righteous 
individuals  tliat  sulTered  the  most  grievous  hardships,  and 
that  often  just  because  of  their  righteousness — "  For  Thy 
sake  are  we  killed  all  day  long"  (Ps.  xliv.  22).  And  then 
this  ideal  of  a  perfect  retributive  providence  in  this  world 
began  to  break  up.  Men  felt  it  giving  way  under  their 
feet.  And  profoundly  interesting  is  it  to  observe  the  per- 
plexities, we  might  say  the  agitation  and  alarm,  which  the 
discovery  occasioned.  The  unrighteousness  prevailing  on 
the  earth  was  immediately  transferred  to  God  as  the  author 
of  it ;  for  He  was  the  author  of  all  events.  The  very  sun 
of  righteousness  in  the  heavens  seemed  to  suffer  eclipse. 
The  reason  of  pious  minds  almost  tottered  under  the  sugges- 
tion that  God  Himself  was  unrighteous,  as  the  author  of  Job 
makes  him  say :  "  It  is  God  that  makes  my  heart  soft,  and 
the  Almighty  that  troul)leth  me"  (Job  xxiii.  16);  "The 
earth  is  given  into  the  hands  of  the  wicked :  He  covereth 
the  face  of  the  judges  thereof ;  if  not  He,  who  then  is  it  ? " 
(Job  ix.  24).  By  and  by  a  higher  teaching  calmed  these 
feelings  by  suggesting  considerations,  such  as  that  these 
afflictions  of  the  righteous  might  serve  beneficent  ends, 
even  in  regard  to  the  righteous  themselves.  And  further, 
it  calmed  them  by  opening  a  glimpse,  if  no  more,  of  the 
truth,  that  though  pious  minds  might  end  their  life  on 
earth  amidst  darkness,  a  light  might  still  arise  after  death. 
This  appears  the  position  assumed  in  Job  xix.  25:  "I 
know  that  my  Eedeemer  liveth  .  .  .  and  after  this  my 
body  is  destroyed,  I  shall  see  God :  whom  I  shall  see  for 
myself,  and  mine  eyes  shall  behold,  and  not  another."  Ap- 
parently also  in  Pss.  xlix.,  Ixxiii.,  and  possibly  xxxvii.  Ikit 
of  these  we  shall  speak  again. 

There  is  yet  another  point  of  view  from  which,  to  us 
now,  the  want  of  clearness  in  the  Old  Testament  doctiine 
of  a  future  life  appears  somewhat  strange.  We  are  sur- 
prised that  the  Old  Testament  saint  seemed  satisfied  with 
the  conditions,  necessarily  imperfect,  of  a  religious  life  with 


412   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

God  upon  the  earth ;  that  he  did  not  feel  the  need  of  a 
closer  fellowship  with  God  than  is  possible  amidst  the 
imperfections  of  earth ;  and  that  dissatisfaction  with  earth 
did  not  lead  him  to  demand,  and  to  believe  in,  a  more 
perfect  condition  of  existence  and  a  nearer  vision  of  God. 
Now,  in  this  there  may  be  some  imperfection  in  the  manner 
of  thought  and  feeling  of  the  Old  Testament  saints.  Here 
at  least  we  touch  upon  a  point  in  which  we  have  been 
taught  to  diverge  from  them,  and  which  in  some  respects 
is  just  the  point  of  difference  between  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  New.  In  order  to  judge  these  Hebrew  saints 
fairly,  however,  we  must  look  closely  at  their  way  of 
thinking ;  and  if  we  do  so,  perhaps  we  shall  be  prepared 
to  admit  that  we  may  have  diverged  from  them,  not  indeed 
in  fundamental  faith,  but  practically  further  than  was 
necessary.  We  have  come  to  feel  strongly  the  imperfec- 
tions of  the  most  perfect  life  upon  the  earth,  and  to  believe 
that  only  in  a  world  that  is  another  can  full  fellowship 
with  God  be  found.  However  true  this  be,  it  is  possible 
that  the  very  axiomatic  nature  of  the  truth  leads  occasion- 
ally to  the  undue  depreciation  of  this  life,  and  to  an  un- 
necessary disparaging  of  the  possibiHties  it  offers  in  the 
way  of  living  unto  God.  So  far  as  the  Old  Testament 
saints  were  concerned,  if  we  examine  the  utterances  very 
numerously  scattered  over  the  Scriptures,  we  do  find 
evidence  of  a  very  vivid  consciousness  of  the  presence  of 
God  with  them,  and  of  the  possession  of  His  fellowship : 
"  Whom  have  I  in  heaven  ?  and  on  earth  there  is  none  I 
desire  beside  Thee"  (Ps.  Ixxiii.  25).  "When  I  awake  I  am 
still  with  Thee"  (Ps.  cxxxix.  18).  "I  have  set  the  Lord 
before  me  ;  He  is  at  my  right  hand  "  (Ps.  xvi.  8).  "  Never- 
theless I  am  continually  with  Thee"  (Ps.  Ixxiii.  23). 
This  consciousness  of  God's  nearness  and  fellowship  seems 
to  exceed  that  which  men  ordiuarily  have  now.  We  might 
speculate  to  what  it  was  due. 

In  some  respects  it  might  be  due  to  the  extremely 
emotional  and  the  highly  intuitive  nature  of  the  people's 
mind,  which  realised  God  more  -powerfully  than  our  minds 


THE   MEANING   OF   LIFE  413 

do.  There  was,  no  doubt,  something  supernatural  in  the 
visions  of  God  wliich  such  prophets  as  Isaiah  and  Ezekiel 
saw,  but  tliere  must  also  have  been  a  peculiar  mental 
characteristic  which  lent  itself  readily  to  such  revelations. 
Perhaps  another  thing  which  helped  the  people  to  realise 
the  presence  of  God  so  vividly  with  them  was  just  this, 
that  He  did  in  fact  dwell  in  a  house  among  them  wliere 
He  had  placed  His  name.  When  the  worshipper  came  to 
this  house,  he  felt  he  was  near  unto  God ;  there  he  ap- 
peared before  Him.  We  are  familiar  with  the  vividness 
with  which  God's  presence  was  realised,  and  with  the 
longing  of  saints  to  be  near  the  place  of  His  abode : 
"  One  thing  have  I  desired  .  .  .  that  I  may  dwell  in  the 
house  of  the  Lord  all  the  days  of  my  life,  to  behold  the 
beauty  of  the  Lord  "  (Ps.  xxvii.  4).  But  to  whatever  this 
vivid  realising  of  God's  presence  was  due,  it  certainly 
existed  in  the  minds  of  His  people,  and  the  religious 
meaning  of  it  is  not  affected.  That  which  constitutes  the 
essence  of  the  future  world  to  men  now,  the  presence  of 
God,  the  Israelite  profoundly  enjoyed  on  earth. 

But  no  doubt  a  significant  point  of  difference  between 
the  modes  of  thought  among  Old  Testament  saints  and 
those  now  current  emerges  here.  The  difference  lies  in  the 
different  views  of  what  constitutes  life.  To  the  Israelite, 
'  life '  meant  what  we  ordinarily  call  *  life  in  the  body.' 
Life  was  the  existence  of  man  in  all  his  parts.  When 
Adam  was  created,  God  formed  him  of  the  dust,  and 
breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life ;  and  he  became 
a  living  person  (Gen.  ii.  7).  He  lived ;  and  in  the  fellow- 
ship of  God  his  life  was  perfect.  And  so  the  pious 
Israelite  always  continued  to  think.  To  him,  separation  of  v 
the  spirit  from  the  body  was  what  he  called  death.  He 
was  far  removed  from  the  philosophical  view  that  the  body 
was  a  prison-house,  released  from  which  the  spirit  could 
spread  its  wings  and  soar  into  purer  and  loftier  regions. 
Neither  yet  had  he  attained  to  the  Christian  view,  that 
^vhere  is  a  perfection  of  the  spirit  even  apart  from  the  body. 
His  view  of  life  was  the  synthetic  ouq  ;  it  was  the  existence 


414        THE    THEOLOGY    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

of  man  in  all  his  parts,  living  in  the  light  of  God's  face. 
He  stood  before  that  analysis,  so  to  speak,  which  ex- 
perience teaches  ns  takes  place  in  death ;  and  his  view 
corresponded  to  that  new  synthesis  which  the  New  Testa- 
ment teaches,  when  the  dissolved  elements  of  hnman 
nature  shall  be  reunited  in  the  resurrection  life.  And  his 
nomenclature  corresponded  with  that  of  the  Apostle  Paul ; 
he  called  the  existence  of  man  in  the  hody  'life/  as  the 
apostle  names  existence  in  the  resurrection  tody  '  life.' 

But  of   course,  life  being  understood  in  this  sense,  a 
physical  sphere  was  necessary  for  it.      Hence,  as  the  earth 
was  the  abode  of  man,  it  was  to  be  his  abode  for  ever. 
A  transcendental  sphere  of  existence,  such  as  we  conceive 
heaven,  could  not  occur  to  the  Israelite.      He  was  far  from 
being  insensible  to  the  imperfections  that  accompanied  life. 
Though  he  enjoyed   God's  presence,  it  was  not  yet   God's 
presence  in  its  fidness.      In  a  sense,  therefore,  the  Israelite 
believed  in  a  future  life,  and  longed  for  it.     But  it  was  not  a 
life  in  a  transcendental  sphere  ;  it  was  a  future  life  upon  the 
earth.      In  the  perfection  of  the  people  of  God  they  would 
not  be  translated  to  be  with  God  in  heaven,  but  God  would 
come  down  and  reveal  Himself  in  His  fulness  among  men ; 
the  tabernacle  of  God  would  be  with  men,  and  He  would  be 
their  God,  and  they  His  people.      Then  God  would  make  a 
new  covenant  with  men,  forgiving  their  sin,  and  writing 
His  law  upon  their  hearts.      And  the  kingdom  would  be 
the  Lord's.      And  simultaneously  with  this  manifestation 
of  Jehovah  among  men,  the  earth  would  be  transfigured, 
and  all   hindrances  to  a  perfect  life  with   God  removed : 
"  Behold  I  create  a  new  heavens  and  a  new  earth,  and  the 
former  shall   not   be  remembered"  (Isa.   Ixv.   17),      This 
manifestation  of  Jehovah   in  His  fulness  was  felt  as  if  it 
were  imminent ;   the  salvation  was  ready  to  be  revealed. 
And  here,  perhaps,  just  as  much  as  anywhere,  lies  the  ex- 
planation of  the  want  of  the  kind  of  faith  which  we  now 
have.      The  eternal  abode  of  man  was  the  earth  ;  perfection 
lay  in  the  perfect  presence  of  Jehovah  ;  but  His  perfect  pre- 
sence was  always  near  in  hope, — living  men  might  behold  it. 


LIFE    IN    GODS    FELLOWSHIP  415 

2.  FelloivsJdp  with  God  the  Fundamental  Idea. 

These  considerations  may  tend  somewhat  to  remove 
our  surprise  at  the  absence  of  explicit  teacliing  al)out 
immortality  in  the  Old  Testament.  The  ])i()us  Israelite 
had  in  truth,  or  felt  lie  had  in  essence,  all  those  thiiifis 
tliat  constitute  heaven.  No  doubt  he  had  tliem  in  idea, 
rather  than  in  the  fulness  of  reality.  He  had  that  sense  of 
perfect  retribution  which  to  us  seems  to  belong  to  the  future, 
although  the  time  came  when  painful  doul^ts  arose,  and 
suggested  that  something  was  wanting.  He  had  that 
presence  of  God  which  is  that  wliich  gives  its  meaning  to 
lieaven.  It  was  this  that  made  up  the  joy  of  life  to  him — 
"Thou  art  the  portion  of  my  cup  .  .  .  the  lines  have  fallen  to 
me  in  pleasant  places  "  (Ps.  xvi.  5—7).  So  that  the  acute 
remark  made  by  the  autliors  of  the  work  called  the  Unseen 
Universe  is  true,  who  say :  "  Not  from  want  of  religion,  but 
from  excess  of  religion,  was  this  void  [specific  thoughts 
al)out  future  immortality]  left  in  the  Jewish  mind.  The 
future  life  was  overlooked,  overshadowed  by  the  conscious- 
ness of  the  presence  of  God  Himself"  (p.  9).  Yet  this 
presence  of  God  was  not  in  such  fulness  as  to  satisfy,  and 
in  this  sense  the  pious  Israelite  looked  for  a  future  life, 
when  God  would  be  present  in  His  glory.  But  this 
perfection  was  one  the  scene  of  wliich  still  remained  the 
earth ;  there  was  no  translation  of  man  into  a  transcend- 
ental sphere  of  spiritual  existence. 

It  is  to  tliis  point  of  the  enjoyment  of  God's  fellowship 
and  life  in  His  favour  upon  the  earth  that  tlie  chief 
developments  of  the  Old  Testament  doctrine  of  innnortality 
attach  themselves.  The  event  of  death  interrupted  this 
fellowship,  and  turned  the  joy  of  life  with  God  into  dark- 
ness. For,  to  the  Israelite,  death  was  truly  death ;  and  the 
dead  were  cut  off'  from  fellowship  with  the  living,  whether 
man  or  God.  It  may  seem  surprising  that  the  references 
to  death  are  so  few  in  the  Old  Testament.  Yet,  if  we  count 
them  up,  the  passages  are  pretty  numerous.  Naturally, 
these  passages  are  generally  of  the  nature  of  reminiscences 


416   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

of  feelings  that  were  present  when  the  prospect  of  death 
was  near.  Hence  they  are  all  personal,  and  not  of  the 
nature  of  abstract  teaching ;  though  they  often  rise  to  the 
expression  of  principles,  particularly  the  principle  that 
fellowship  with  God  constitutes  an  indissoluble  bond,  which 
death  cannot  sever.  The  kind  of  immortality  demanded, 
or  inferred  or  prayed  for,  is  always  a  religious  im- 
mortality, the  continuance  of  that  life  with  God  already 
lived  on  earth.  The  mere  existence  of  the  spirit  after 
death  is  never  the  point,  for  this  was  never  doubted ;  it  is 
the  existence  in  the  fellowship  of  God  and  in  the  light  of 
His  face  that  is"  supplicated  for  or  assumed.  Hence  every 
contribution  made  to  the  question  is  of  a  practical  religious 
kind.  It  is  a  demand  of  the  religious  mind,  what  seems  to  it 
of  the  nature  of  a  necessity ;  or  it  is  a  flight  of  ecstasy  of 
the  religious  experience ;  or  it  is  what  seems  involved  in  the 
very  relations  of  God  and  the  mind  of  man. 

To  the  Old  Testament  saints,  immortality  seemed  the 
corollary  of  religion,  for  immortality  was  the  continuance  of 
fellowship  with  God.  If  religion  was  true,  i.e.  if  God  was, 
then  that  experience  which  religion  was  would  continue, 
and  men  would  live.  The  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament 
is  summed  up  by  our  Lord :  "  God  is  not  the  God  of  the 
dead,  but  of  the  living"  (Matt.  xxii.  32).  The  prophets 
and  saints  of  the  Old  Testament  kingdom  of  God  were  not 
speculative  men.  They  did  not  reason  that  the  soul  was 
immortal  from  its  nature;  this  was  not  the  kind  of  im- 
mortality in  which  they  were  interested,  tliough  for  all  that 
appears  the  idea  that  the  immaterial  part  of  man  should 
become  extinct  or  be  annihilated,  never  occurred  to  them. 
They  did  not  lay  stress,  in  an  objective,  reflective  way,  on 
man's  instinctive  hopes  of  immortality,  though  perhaps  they 
may  be  observed  giving  these  instinctive  desires  expression. 
They  could  not,  with  the  patient  eye  of  inductive  observa- 
tion, gather  up  what  we  call  analogies  to  the  passage  of 
beings  from  a  lower  to  a  liiglier  life,  such  as  we  conceive 
our  own  death  to  be,  as  tlie  entrance  of  a  fuller  life.  Tliey 
did  not  reason :  they  felt,  and  they  knew.     They  set  the 


VIEW   OF   MANS   NATURB  417 

Lord  before  them ;  (iiid  because  He  was  at  their  right  hand 
tliey  wore  not  moved,  and  every  element  of  tlieir  being 
rejoiced.  They  had  b'fe  with  Clod,  and  they  felt  that  im- 
mortality was  involved  in  their  commimion  with  Him.  He 
was  their  (k)d;  and  He  was  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but 
of  the  living.  This  communion  was  the  object  of  their 
liopes  and  the  ground  of  their  faith.  Their  faith  in 
immortality  was  but  a  form  of  their  faith  in  G-od.  It 
was  entirely  subjective  and  religious, — the  corollary  not 
of  reason,  but  of  experience  drawn  from  their  actual  life 
with  God.  And  even  if  it  had  remained  but  a  record  of 
subjective  conditions,  of  postulates  of  faith,  of  demands  not 
of  reason,  but  of  rehgious  life,  without  any  objective  veri- 
fication, it  would  have  been  a  distinct  contribution  to  the 
belief  of  men  in  immortality,  a  contribution  in  a  region  and 
from  a  side  altogether  different  from  those  in  which  other 
nations  made  their  contributions — the  contribution  not  of 
man's  reflection,  but  of  his  religious  nature. 

But  the  Old  Testament  age  did  not  pass  away  without 
these  subjective  aspirations  receiving  an  external  seal.  In 
Christ  these  subjective  hopes  and  demands  of  faith  and 
man's  heart  became  real  outward  facts.  In  His  life  they 
passed  into  history. 

3.  Preliminary  Questions  as  to  Man's  Nature. 

Any  question  concerning  death  and  immortality  and 
resurrection  must  be  preceded  by  other  questions  relating 
to  the  nature  of  man.  For  if  death  be  in  some  sense 
a  dissolution,  and  that  which  is  simple  is  incapable  of 
separation,  the  nature  of  man  must  be  compound ;  and 
its  elements  will  demand  consideration,  the  dissolution  of 
which  is  death,  the  continued  separation  of  which  is  the 
state  of  the  dead,  and  the  reunion  of  which  is  resurrection. 
But  there  is  no  question  more  difficult  in  Biblical  Theology 
than  the  question  of  the  nature  of  man.  Not  only  is  there 
no  certain  answer  given  to  it  in  the  Old  Testament,  but 
the  New  Testament  seems  to  leave  it  equally  unsettled. 
27 


418   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

That  man  possesses  a  soul  and  a  body  is  clearly  tanght. 
That  is  the  simplest  and  most  general  form  in  which  the 
teaching  appears.  That  death  may  be  defined  as  the  separa- 
tion of  these;  that  their  localities  during  death  remain 
distinct ;  and  that  in  resurrection  they  are  united, — tliese 
are  all  general  statements,  true  indeed,  but  concealing  within 
them  a  number  of  minor  undetermined  problems.  With 
regard  to  the  body,  except  in  the  matter  of  its  resurrection, 
there  is  not  much  complication.  But  on  the  side  of  the  soul 
there  is  such  a  variety  of  terminology  employed,  and  such 
apparently  irreconcilable  predications  are  made  concerning 
it,  that  certain  results  seem  hardly  to  be  expected  from 
any  investigation.  The  first  and  most  prominent  fact  is 
that  Scripture  constantly  uses  two  words  for  this  side  of 
human  nature,  soul  and  spirit,  which  it  does  not  employ 
indiscriminately  by  any  means.  It  seems  to  regard  the 
latter  as  the  primary,  the  union  of  which  with  body  gives 
rise  to  soid.  But  whether  this  sov.l  that  so  arises  be  itself 
something  distinct  from  the  sjnrit  which,  uniting  with  the 
body,  gave  rise  to  it,  or  whether  it  be  not  that  spirit  itself 
conceived  in  this  state  of  union  and  in  all  the  relations 
incidental  to  it,  so  that  the  naked  essence  unrelated  would 
be  called  spirit,  and  the  same  essence  in  vital  union  with 
the  body  would  be  named  soul,  is  a  question  to  which 
answers  very  diverse  have  been  returned.  Moreover,  as  to 
this  spirit  itself,  its  relation  to  God's  nature  is  very 
obscurely  set  forth  in  Scripture ;  for  it  seems  sometimes 
called  His.  He  gives  it,  and  men  live ;  He  takes  it  away, 
and  men  die.  It  returns  to  God  who  gave  it.  He  is  "  tlie 
God  of  the  spirits  of  all  flesh"  (Num.  xvi.  22,  xxvii.  16). 
And  sometimes  it  is  called  man's.  Thus  we  are  at  a  loss 
to  say  whether  this  spirit  which  God  gives  man,  and  which, 
coming  from  God,  may  be  called  God's  (as  the  apostle  also 
exhorts  us  to  glorify  Him  in  our  l)odies,  which  are  God's, 
Gal.  vi.  20),  and  which,  given  to  man  and  belonging  to  him, 
may  be  called  man's, —  be  really  a  permanent  part  of  man 
at  all,  or  merely  God  Himself  abiding  in  every  creature, 
sustaining  life,  and  when  He  withdraws,  causing  that  from 


SOUL   AND   SPIRIT  419 

which  He  withdmws  to  fall  into  death.  There  are  thus  two 
very  obscure  sides  to  the  question  concerning  man's  nature : 
one  is  the  relation  of  man's  spirit  to  man's  soul :  and  the 
other  is  the  relation  of  man's  spirit  to  God's  Spirit,  Are 
soul  and  spirit  in  man  essentially  or  substantially,  or  only 
relatioually  distinct  ?  Are  man's  spirit  and  God's  Spirit 
numerically  distinct,  or  is  tlie  same  spirit  called  man's 
because  possessed  by  man,  and  God's  because  given  by  God? 
And  being  given  by  God,  is  it  man's  inalienabile  possession, 
or  only  a  temporary  gift  ?  These  are  questions  on  which 
one  cannot  profess  to  be  able  to  declare  an}^  very  definite 
results.  But  tliey  deserve  consideration,  partly  because 
they  are  of  great  interest  in  themselves,  and  partly  on 
account  of  their  bearing  on  the  larger  question  of  im- 
mortality. For  this  latter  strikes  its  roots  very  deep  down 
into  the  Old  Testament  views  of  the  primary  and  essential 
relations  of  man  with  God. 

With  regard  to  the  essential  or  substantial  distinction 
of  soul  and  spirit  in  man,  there  are  certain  statements  in  the 
New  Testament,  to  wliich  we  may  return  here,^  as  they  might 
seem  and  have  indeed  been  considered  by  many,  undeniably 
to  establish  it.  There  is  the  passage  in  1  Thess.  v.  23:  "And 
the  very  God  of  peace  sanctify  you  wholly  ;  and  I  pray  God 
your  whole  spirit  and  soul  and  body  be  preserved  blameless 
unto  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ."  Here,  to  use  the 
words  of  Ellicott,  the  prayer  "  is  threefold :  first,  that  they 
may  be  sanctified  by  God,  the  God  of  peace ;  for  sanctifica- 
tion  is  the  condition  of  outward  and  inward  peace,  wholly 
oXorekeh  in  their  collective  powers  and  constituents ;  next, 
that  each  constituent  may  be  preserved  to  our  Lord's 
coming  ;  and,  lastly,  that  each  so  preserved  may  be  entire 
and  complete  in  itself,  not  mutilated  or  desintegrated  by 
sin ; — that  the  body  may  retain  its  yet  uneffaced  image  of 
God,  and  its  unimpaired  aptitude  to  be  a  living  sacrifice  to 
its  maker ;  tlie  appetitive  soul  its  purer  hopes  and  nobler 
aspirations ;  the  spirit,  its  ever  blessed  associate,  the  Holy 
and  Eternal  Spirit  of  God  "  {Destiny  of  the  Creature,  p.  107). 
1  See  pp.  181-187.— Ed. 


420   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMF:NT     ' 

This  New  Testament  passage  certainly  names  three  con- 
stituent elements  of  human  nature,  names  them  all  co- 
ordinately,  and  speaks  of  each  as  needing  sanctification,  and 
capable  of  preservation.  Are  we  to  consider  the  distinction 
between  soul  and  spirit  as  real,  or  only,  so  to  speak, 
functional ;  as  a  distinction  of  organs  or  substances,  or 
only  of  the  different  relations  or  conditions  of  a  single 
element  ? 

In  Heb.  iv.  12,  too,  there  occurs,  as  we  have  seen,  a 
similar  passage :  "  For  the  word  of  God  is  quick,  and 
powerful,  and  sharper  than  any  two-edged  sword,  piercing 
even  to  the  dividing  asunder  of  soul  and  spirit,  and  of 
the  joints  and  marrow,  and  is  a  discerner  of  the  thoughts 
and  intents  of  the  heart."  The  word  of  God  has  four 
qualities  assigned  to  it :  (1)  it  is  living,  ^cov ;  (2)  it  is  active, 
ivep^rj^ ;  (3)  sharp ;  (4)  reaching  even  to  the  dividing,  i.e. 
even  as  far  as  to  divide,  a^pt  fiepia/xov,  of  soul  and  spirit. 
The  word  fiepia/jLo^  is  rather  the  noun  of  action,  dividiiig, 
than  the  place,  division ;  the  words  do  not  mean  entering 
in  so  deep  as  to  reach  the  place  of  division  of  soul  and 
spirit,  the  limit  of  boundary  between  them,  where  the  two 
meet,  where  the  line  of  division  runs  between  them ;  but 
entering  so  deep  as  to  divide  the  soul  and  spirit,  as  to 
effect  a  division  of  them.  Yet  it  is  left  ambiguous  whether 
the  sharp  Word  of  God,  which  enters  so  deeply  that  it 
divides,  effects  this  division  between  the  soul  and  spirit,  and 
between  the  joints  and  marrow,  or  within  the  soul  and 
spirit ;  that  is  to  say,  whether  it  separates  between  the 
two,  or  cuts  asunder  each  into  its  parts,  lays  it  open,  or, 
as  we  should  say,  dissects  both  soul  and  spirit,  both  joints 
and  marrow. 

So  far  as  our  question  goes,  a  decision  on  this  point  is 
not  important.  The  passage  recognises  two  things :  one 
called  soul,  which  is  not  merely  the  animal  life,  and  another 
called  spi7'it.  These  are  so  substantial  and  independent, 
that  either  they  may  be  separated  by  a  distinction  and  a 
lino  of  division  drawn  between  them, — a  sharp  distinction, 
it  is  true,  but  one  which  the  Word  of  God,  sharper  than 


man's  spirit  and  god's  spirit  421 

any  two-edged  sword,  is  qualified  to  effect, — or  each  of 
them  may  be  severally  divided  and  cut  open  into  its  own 
elements.  As  was  said,  the  view  which  considers  the 
division  not  to  be  made  between  the  two  elements,  soul  and 
spirit,  but  within  each  of  them,  seems  the  true  one ;  for 
one  does  not  divide  joints  from  marrow,  but  rather  divides 
joints  themselves,  and  goes  so  deep  as  to  cut  open  even 
the  marrow.  But  in  any  case  the  question  is :  Does 
Scripture,  w^hile  speaking  of  two  such  distinct  and  even 
antagonistic  things,  mean  really  two  things,  or  only  two 
aspects  and  relations,  two  sides  of  tlie  one  individual  thing, 
which,  considered  in  itself,  in  its  nature,  is  called  spirit, 
and  as  such  is  pure  and  Divine ;  and  considered  as  related 
to  the  flesh,  is  called  soul,  and  in  this  relation  may  be 
degraded  and  covered  with  the  sensuous  ?  I  suspect  there 
is  no  passage  which  can  be  adduced  at  all  so  clear  as  those 
two,  and  to  some  these  have  seemed  decisive,  but  to  others 
quite  the  reverse. 

These  passages  raise  only  one  of  the  two  questions  over 
which  obscurity  in  this  matter  hangs.  The  otlier  question, 
namely,  that  of  the  relation  of  man's  spirit  and  God's  Spirit, 
is  raised  as  soon  as  we  turn  to  the  Old  Testament.  In  the 
account  given  of  the  creation  of  man  (Gen.  ii.  7),  something 
is  said  both  about  the  origin  and  about  the  elements  of  his 
nature :  "  God  formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  earth,  and 
breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life ;  and  he  became 
a  living  soul."  There  are  three  things  or  stages  in  the 
process.  First,  God  formed  man  of  "^sy,  dust,  the  most 
immaterial  of  the  material  elements  of  earth.  If  you 
contrast  man's  formation  with  that  of  the  beasts,  you  find 
that  it  is  the  result  of  a  specific  decree  on  God's  part,  and  of 
a  particular  independent  act  of  formation.  The  earth  and 
waters  at  the  command  of  God  hrowjht  forth  the  other 
creatures.  But  man's  formation  is  tlie  issue  of  delil)eration 
and  distinct  workmansliip  on  (Jod's  jjart.  Second,  his  body 
being  formed,  God  breathed  into  liis  nostrils  the  breath 
of  life,  Ci^^n  r.roc'i,  i,e.  the  breatli  which  is  the  origin  and 
font  of  life,  ratlier  than  the  breath  which  is  the  index  of 


422        THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

life.  This  is  the  point  around  which  the  controversy 
turns.  The  word  hreath  is  not  used,  I  think, — there  is  one 
disputed  passage, — of  the  life-breath  of  other  creatures 
besides  man.  The  act  was  real  and  symbolic.  God 
breathed.  What  He  breathed  was  nn^'J ;  this  became  in 
man  D^^n  ':,  hreath  of  life.  Third,  this  done  to  man,  man 
became  a  living  soul,  n*n  K'D3.  The  difference  of  construc- 
tion of  these  words  is  to  be  observed  :  soul,  ':,  has  always  an 
adjective  qualifying  it, — man  is  a  living  soul,  the  soul  lives, 
is  the  bearer  of  life,  within  it  all  life's  functions  go  on,  and 
all  life's  phenomena  are  realised ;  and  so  Paul  says :  "  the 
first  man,  Adam,  was  made  a  yjrvxn  ^(i^o-^  "  (1  Cor.  xv.  45). 
The  word  hreath,  '^,  however,  or  elsewhere  spirit,  'i,  has  no 
adjective  to  qualify  it,  but  a  noun  in  construction  with  it. 
You  do  not  speak  of  a  living  sjnrit,  but  of  a  sjnrit  of  life, 
— one  which  confers  or  bestows  life,  one  from  which  life 
issues  forth ;  it  is  the  spirit  that  giveth  life,  to  irveviid  eari 
TO  ^cooTTOLovv  (Johu  vl.  63).  The  sout  lives;  but  it  has 
not  life  in  itself,  the  spirit  gives  it  life. 

If  we  recur  for  a  moment  to  the  second  step  in  the 
process,  without  discussing  the  word  became,  it  is  evident 
that  although  the  act  was  symbolical,  and  might  seem  to 
be  limited  in  meaning  to  the  mere  calling  into  operation 
the  inspiring  and  expiring  processes  of  man's  respiration, 
and  the  putting  within  him  that  which  is  the  sign  of  life, 
namely,  his  breath ;  yet  the  expression  hreath  of  life  can 
hardly  mean  merely  breath,  which  is  the  sig^i  of  life  here. 
The  action  is  not  to  be  taken  as  merely  symbolical  of 
putting  breath  in  man.  For  that  which  God  breathed 
into  man  could  not  be  mere  atmospheric  air,  and  besides 
there  is  the  same  double  use  of  words  in  Hebrew  that 
appears  in  all  languages,  the  word  for  breath  and  spirit 
being  the  same.  And  further,  in  point  of  fact,  this  ^^l 
here  said  to  be  breathed  into  man  is,  as  breathed,  elsewhere 
said  to  be  the  cause  of  imderstanding  in  him :  "  the 
breath  (or  inspiration)  of  the  Almighty  giveth  understand- 
ing," D?;3ri  ^"H^'  ':  (Job  xxxii.  8).  The  narrative  is  simple, 
and  might  seem  merely  to  allude  to  the  putting  of  breath 


THE   BREATH   OF   LIFE  423 

into  man,  which  is  the  sign  of  life ;  but  in  conformity 
with  the  usage  of  '3  elsewliere,  we  must  hold  that  it  is 
also  the  spirit  or  breath  of  God  which  is  the  source  of 
life  in  man. 

But  now,  on  the  other  hand,  what  was  this  which  God 
breathed  into  man  ?  Was  it  His  own  Spirit  ?  On  the  one 
hand,  we  might  strictly  adhere  to  the  figure,  and  say :  No 
man  breathes  his  own  spirit — that  principle,  namely,  where- 
by his  own  personal  existence  is  continued,  and  whereby  he 
breathes ;  but  only  that  whereby  his  existence  manifests 
itself,  viz.  breath.  And  thus  what  God  breathed  into  man 
stood  related  to  Himself,  as  a  man's  breath  is  related  to 
him ;  it  was  not  His  own  Spirit,  but  something  else.  His 
breath.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  spiration  of  a  spirit 
is  spirit ;  the  spiration  of  God  gives  subsistence  to  His 
Holy  Spirit.  And  thus  many  Psychologists,  such  as  Oehler, 
Hofmann,  and  others,  hold  that  there  was  a  real  com- 
munication of  God's  own  Spirit,  which,  thus  communicated, 
became,  or  gave  origin  to,  '3,  or  soid.  Thus  Oehler  says  : 
" ':  nil  aliud  nisi  inclusam  in  corpore,  spiritus  divini,  ut  ita 
dicam,  particulam."  He  thinks  it  needful  to  defend  such 
a  theory  from  the  charge  of  Pantheism  and  Emanationism, 
and  he  considers  it  sufficient  for  that  purpose  to  assert  that 
God  comnmnicated  His  spirit  willingly.  But  if  every 
creature's  spirit  be  God's  Spirit,  so  far  as  spirit  is  con- 
cerned. Pantheism  is  the  result,  though  there  may  not 
attach  to  such  a  pantheistic  theory  certain  characteristics 
which  usually  attach  to  pantheistic  theories,  such  as  un- 
consciousness in  that  which  is  Pantheos.  On  the  other 
hand,  this  passage  in  Genesis  does  not  teach  that  this  '3 
which  was  put  into  man  was  created.  It  came  out  of  God. 
He  breathed  it  into  man.  To  our  feeble  thinking — I 
ought,  perhaps,  to  apologise  for  saying  feeble,  for  to  some 
the  rigorous  and  sharp  distinction  of  creation  and  emana- 
tion, and  the  denial  of  any  other  kind  of  origin  whatever, 
may  seem  strength, — to  our  thinking  there  may  be  no 
middle  thing  between  bare  external  creation  and  coarse 
materialistic   emanatiou,  and  consequent    partition   of   the 


424   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

Diviue ;  but  uiir  thinking-  may  not  be  entitled  to  be  con- 
sidered the  measure  of  possibility  on  a  subject  so  profound. 
One  has  a  repugnance  to  believe  in  the  creation  of  spirit 
as  he  does  in  the  creation  of  matter.  And  there  is  a 
difficulty  attaching  to  the  conception  of  it  quite  distinct 
from  the  difficulty  attaching  to  the  conception  of  creation 
as  such.  That  any  Being,  even  God,  should  be  able  to 
produce  substances  and  natures  the  same  as  His  own,  by 
mere  outward  creation  and  not  by  some  internal  process 
of  generation,  is  so  altogether  unlike  what  we  see  or  can 
conceive  as  harmonious  in  the  nature  of  things,  that  we 
almost  claim  to  be  allowed  to  repose  in  some  middle  effort 
of  the  Divine  nature,  which  shall  not  be  altogether  gene- 
ration nor  altogether  creation.  Scripture  calls  God  "  the 
Father  of  our  spirits.*'  No  doubt  it  does  elsewhere  say 
that  He  formeth,  "^^^  the  spirit  of  man,  within  him, 
Zech.  xii.   1. 

But  thus  you  will  see  how  the  question  is  encumbered, 
and  that  in  matters  concerning  the  state  of  the  dead  we 
may  find  expressions  both  hard  to  understand  in  themselves 
and  not  easily  reconcilable  with  one  another.  Probably 
aU  that  can  be  determined  meantime  with  certainty,  though 
it  leaves  the  questions  which  were  raised  very  vaguely 
answered,  is  this :  Whether  the  soul,  ':,  in  man  be  distinct 
substantially  from  the  spirit  or  no,  the  soul  is  the  seat  of 
life  and  of  personality  in  man,  and  having  received  sub- 
sistence, no  more  loses  it.  At  death  it  parts  from  the 
body ;  if  the  person  who  died  be  restored  to  life,  tlie  soul 
returns  to  the  body.  It  has  existence  apart  from  the  body 
in  Sheol,  and  the  personality  is  still  attached  to  it  in  that 
region.  The  Old  Testament,  I  think,  does  not  call  that 
which  is  in  Sheol  soul,  nor  yet  spirit ;  it  does  not  con- 
descend upon  the  quality  of  any  of  the  individuals  there ; 
it  calls  them  all  ^^^^'^.,  that  is,  either  soft,  tenues,  shadowy, 
or  long-stretched.  Again,  as  to  spirit,  whether  that  be 
man's  permanently,  or  God's  actually  and  man's  only  in 
temporary  possession,  it  is  said  to  return  to  God  who  gave 
it  (Eccles.  xii.  7).     Its   presence  is  the  source  of  life  in 


THE    IDEA    OF    SHEOL  425 

man;  its  withdrawal  pnKlucoR  death,  and  even  its  i>ai'tial 
withdrawal  a  diminishing  of  t.lie  powers  of  life. 

It  iniglit  be  surmised  fi-om  the  strong  expressions  used 
many  times  of  death  in  the  Old  Testament,  that  it  was 
believed  that  in  death  the  existence  of  the  soul  came  to  an 
end.  So,  e.g.,  in  Ps.  cxlvi.  4  :  "  His  breath  goeth  forth,  he 
returneth  to  his  earth ;  in  that  very  day  his  thoughts 
perish  " ;  and  in  Ps.  xxxix.  13:  "0  spare  me,  that  I  may 
recover  strength,  before  I  go  hence,  and  be  no  more." 
And  perhaps  most  strongly  of  all  in  Job,  e.g.,  vii.  21  : 
"  And  why  dost  thou  not  pardon  my  transgression  ?  for 
now  shall  I  sleep  in  the  dust ;  and  thou  shalt  seek  me 
eagerly,  but  I  shall  not  be  " ;  and  xiv.  7  :  "  For  a  tree  hath 
hope :  if  it  be  cut  down  it  will  sprout  again ;  but  man 
dieth,  and  wasteth  away :  man  giveth  up  the  ghost,  and 
where  is  he  ?  man  lieth  down,  and  riseth  not :  till  the 
heavens  be  no  more,  they  shall  not  awake,  nor  be  raised 
out  of  their  sleep."  But  these  are  only  the  strong 
expressions  of  despondency  and  regret  over  a  Ufe  mourn- 
fully soon  ended,  and  that  never  returns  to  be  lived 
on  this  busy  earth  again.  The  very  name  and  con- 
ception of  Sheol  is  sufficient  answer  to  the  contention 
that  they  mean  more. 

4.   Concej)tion  of  SheoL 

The  word  ?Si^^,  rarely  written  defectively,  is  a  feminine 
noun,  as  most  other  nouns  are  which  indicate  space,  though 
in  a  few  cases  it  appears  as  masculine.  Its  derivation  is 
uncertain.  Some  derived  it  from  hi<^,  to  asJc,  believing 
that  Hades  is  so  named  from  its  insatiable  craving.  But 
it  is  improbable  that  this  primitive  and  ancient  name  for 
the  underworld  should  be  a  mere  poetical  epithet.  Others, 
with  more  probability,  connect  the  name  with  the  root 
^]}\t%  to  be  hollow,  in  which  case  it  would  resemble  our 
word  Hell,  Germ.  Holle,  that  is,  hollow ;  and  the  name  "lia, 
pit,  with  which  it  is  interchanged  in  the  Old  Testament, 
and  a^vaao^y  its  synonym  in  the  New,  favour  this  deriva- 


426        THE   THEOLOGY   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

tion.i  T]^0  Ql(j  Testament  represents  Sheol  as  the  opposite 
of  this  wpper  sphere  of  light  and  life.  It  is  "  deep  Sheol," 
njrinn  V,  Ps.  Ixxxvi.  13:  "  Thou  hast  deUvered  my  soul 
from  the  lowest  hell."  It  is  deep  down  in  the  earth,  Ps. 
Ixiii.  9  :  "  Those  that  seek  my  soul,  to  destroy  it,  shall  go 
down  into  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth."  Corresponding 
to  this  it  is  the  region  of  darkness,  as  Job,  mournfully 
looking  to  it,  says :  "  A  land  of  darkness,  as  darkness  itself ; 
and  of  the  shadow  of  death,  without  any  order,  and  where 
the  light  is  as  darkness  "  (x.  22,  23).  Of  course,  there  is  no 
formal  topography  to  be  sought  for  in  Sheol.  It  is  in  great 
measure  the  creation  of  the  imagination,  deep  down  under 
the  earth,  even  under  the  waters,  and  dark,  and  all  within 
it  chaos.  The  shades  tremble  "  underneath  the  waters,  and 
their  inhabitants,"  Job  xxvi.  5.  Hence  it  is  often  decked 
out  with  the  horrors  of  the  grave.  The  prophet  Isaiah, 
xiv.  9,  represents  the  king  of  Babylon  as  going  into  Sheol : 
"Sheol  from  beneath  is  moved  for  thee  to  meet  thee  at 
thy  coming.  Thy  pomp  is  brought  down  to  Sheol,  and  the 
noise  of  thy  viols :  the  worm  is  spread  under  thee,  and  the 
worms  cover  thee."  And  so  in  Ezek.  xxxii.  21-23  :  "  The 
strong  among  the  mighty  shall  speak  to  him  out  of  Sheol 
.  .  .  Asshur  is  there  and  all  her  company :  his  graves  are 
about  him :  all  of  them  slain,  fallen  by  the  sword :  whose 
graves  are  set  in  the  sides  of  the  pit." 

That  is  a  representation,  according  to  which  Sheol  is 
a  vast  underground  mausoleum,  with  cells  all  around  like 
graves.  But  it  may  be  asserted  with  some  reason  that 
nowhere  is  Sheol  confounded  with  the  grave,  or  the  word 
used  for  the  place  of  the  dead  body.  Sheol  is  the  place 
of  the  departed  personalities — the  Old  Testament  neither 
calls  them  '  souls  '  nor  '  spirits.'  It  is  the  place  appointed 
for  all  living,  the  great  rendezvous  of  dead  persons ;  for 
a  strict  distinction  is  not  drawn  between  the  body  and 
its  place,  and  the  soul  and  its  place.  The  generations  of 
one's  forefathers  are  all  there,  and  he  who  dies  is  gathered 

^  The  supposed  discovery  of  Sheol  in    Assyrian  Sualii  (as   affirmed   by 
Friedrich  Delitzsch,  Jeremias,  etc.)  is  denied  by  Schrader,  Jensen,  etc. 


STATE    OF    THOSE    IN    RHEOL  427 

unto  Ins  fathers.  The  tiihal  divisions  of  one's  race  are 
tliere,  and  the  dead  man  is  gathered  unto  his  people. 
Separated  from  them  here,  he  is  united  with  them  there. 
And  if  his  own  descendants  had  died  hefore  him,  they 
are  there,  and  he  goes  down,  as  Jacob  to  his  son,  mourning. 
None  can  hope  to  escape  passing  down  among  that  vast 
assemblage  of  thin  and  shadowy  personalities :  "  What 
man  is  he  that  liveth,  and  shall  not  see  death  ?  that  shall 
deliver  his  soul  from  the  hand  of  Sheol  ? "  (Ps.  Ixxxix.  48). 

But  it  may  be  of  use  to  put  under  distinct  heads  a 
few  things  about  Sheol. 

(1)  The  state  of  those  in  Sheol.  As  death  consists  in 
the  withdrawal  by  God  of  the  spirit  of  life,  and  as  this 
spirit  is  the  source,  in  general,  of  energy  and  vital  force, 
the  personality  is  of  necessity  left  feeble  and  flaccid.  All 
that  belongs  to  life  ceases  except  existence.  Hence  Sheol 
is  called  f^"^^^.,  perishing,  it  is  called  Hn,  cessation  (Isa. 
xxxviii.  11).  The  personalities  crowding  there  are  power- 
less, and  drowsy,  and  still  and  silent,  like  those  in  sleep. 
Hence  they  are  called  CJ^SQ")  (Job  xxvi.  5  ;  Isa.  xiv.  9). 
The  state  is  called  nn^-n,  silence :  "  Unless  the  Lord  had 
been  my  help,  my  soul  had  almost  dwelt  in  silence  "  (xciv. 
17).  It  is  the  land  of  forgetfulness  (Ps.  Ixxxviii.  12); 
"  the  living  know  that  they  must  die :  but  the  dead  know 
not  any  thing.  Also  their  love,  and  their  hatred,  and  their 
envy,  is  now  perished  "  (Eccles.  ix.  5).  Yet  though  they 
are  feeble,  as  those  in  Sheol  confess  to  the  Babylonian 
king,  "  Art  thou  become  weak  as  one  of  us  ?  " — ri""?/!  (Isa.  xiv. 
10),  thinned,  as  one  worn  by  sickness, — they  know  them- 
selves and  their  state,  as  this  representation  shows,  and  also 
others.  They  even  seem  to  keep  a  kind  of  shadowy  life 
of  their  own,  a  dreamy  pomp  and  ceremonial,  sitting  with 
invisible  forms  upon  imperceptible  thrones  from  which  they 
are  stirred,  with  a  flicker  of  interest  and  emotion,  to  greet 
any  distinguished  new  arrival.  It  is  the  sliadow  of  earth 
and  its  activities;  wavering  shades  of  the  present  life. 
The  things  said  are  not  presented  to  us  as  matters  of  faith, 
they  are  the  creations  largely  of  the  writers'  imagination. 


428   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

One  can  see  that  tliere  is  no  knowledge  on  the  part  of  the 
writers  concerning  this  underworld.  They  shudder  at  the 
thought  of  it,  and  their  imagination  paints  it  dark  and 
distant.  The  grave  suggests  a  deep  cavernous  receptacle 
to  them.  The  sleep  of  death  causes  them  to  deem  it  a 
land  of  stillness  and  silence.  The  flaccid  corpse  makes 
them  think  of  the  person  as  feeble,  with  no  energy  or 
power  of  resistance.  All  is  taken  from  the  circumstances 
of  death,  and  can  have  no  reality  or  truth  to  us  as  an 
article  of  belief.  Only  this  is  certain,  that  there  was  a 
belief  in  the  continued  existence  of  the  person.  Death 
puts  an  end  to  the  existence  of  no  person. 

(2)  There  seems  to  be  no  distinction  of  good  and  evil  in 
Sheol.  As  all  must  go  into  Sheol,  so  all  are  represented 
as  being  there.  Sheol  is  no  place  of  punishment  itself,  nor 
one  of  reward.  Neither  does  it  seem  divided  into  such 
compartments.  The  state  there  is  neither  blessedness  nor 
misery.  It  is  bare  existence.  "  There  the  wicked  cease  from 
troubling,  i.e.  from  the  disquietude  which  their  own  evil 
causes  them,  and  the  weary  are  at  rest."  "  The  small  and 
great  are  there  alike,  and  the  servant  is  free  from  his 
master"  (Job  iii.  17,  19).  To-morrow,  said  Samuel  to  the 
king  whom  God  had  rejected,  "  to-morrow  shalt  thou  and 
thy  sons  be  with  me.  Then  Saul  fell  straightway  all  along 
upon  the  earth,  and  was  sore  afraid,  because  of  the  words  of 
Samuel"  (1  Sam.  xxviii.  19).  "The  dead  know  not  any- 
thing," says  the  Preacher,  "  neither  have  they  any  more  a 
reward"  (Eccles.  ix.  5). 

There  are,  perhaps,  a  pair  of  passages  from  which  critics 
have  surmised  that  there  was  in  the  Old  Testament 
a  belief  in  a  deeper  Sheol  than  the  ordinary,  a  dBrj^ 
aKOTLa)T€po<i,  a  darker  Hades.  In  Isa.  xiv.,  a  passage 
so  rich  in  contributions  to  our  knowledge  of  Hebrew 
thought  concerning  the  things  of  the  dead,  the  Babylonian 
is  said  to  be  thrust  down  to  "ii^  ^^?1-,  "  tbe  sides  of  the 
pit " ;  he  who  had  said  presumptuously,  "  I  will  set  my 
throne  on  the  sides  of  the  north,  in  the  mount  of  God " 
(P^¥  '•nsT).     But  the  expression  is  evidently  used  in  anti- 


IDEA    OF    GEHENNA  429 

tliesia  to  "  tlie  sides  of  the  north,"  and  cannot  be  held  to 
signify  a  deeper  Hades  tlian  tliat  where  the  or(hnary  dead 
are  assembled.  And  the  same  must  he  said  of  the  only 
other  passages  where  traces  of  such  an  o})inion  have  been 
found  by  some  scholars,  as,  e.g.,  Ezek.  xxxii.  23,  already 
quoted,  and  Isa.  xxiv.  21  :  "  The  Lord  will  punish  the  high 
ones  that  are  on  high,  and  the  kings  of  the  earth  upon  the 
earth.  And  they  shall  be  gathered  together,  as  prisoners 
are  gathered  in  the  pit,  and  shall  be  shut  up  in  the  prison, 
and  after  many  days  shall  they  be  visited."  Neither  can 
the  fervent  prayer  of  Balaam,  "  May  I  die  the  death  of  the 
righteous,  and  may  my  last  end  be  like  his  "  (Num.  xxiii. 
10),  have  any  reference  to  that  which  he  feared  after 
death,  or  to  any  faith  which  he  had  in  a  distinction  in 
the  positions  of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked  in  Sheol. 
Kather  his  prayer  is  that  he  may  live  such  a  Life  as  he 
sees  before  Israel,  rich  in  God's  blessings,  and  therefore 
peaceful  and  long ;  so  that  he  should  die  old  and  full  of 
days,  and  be  carried  to  the  grave  like  a  shock  of  corn 
coming  in  in  his  season. 

It  is  doubtful,  therefore,  if  in  the  Old  Testament  any 
traces  of  a  distinction  in  Sheol  between  the  good  and  evil 
be  found.  The  distinction  that  begins  to  appear  is  that 
indicated  in  Ps.  xlix.,  that  while  the  wicked  are  congregated 
in  Sheol,  the  righteous  overleap  and  escape  it.  Towards 
the  close  of  the  Hebrew  commonwealth,  another  idea  began 
to  rise — that  of  a  gloomy  vale  of  horrid  sufferings  through 
the  torturiugs  of  fire.  This  was  Gehenna — first  the  valley 
of  Hinnom,  where  the  cruel  rites  of  Moloch  were  performed, 
and  children  passed  through  the  fire  to  the  horrid  king. 
Then  this  idea  seemed  to  be  transferred  to  the  state  of 
the  dead,  and  the  wicked  were  conceived  to  be  subjected 
to  such  torments  of  fire.  Already,  ere  New  Testament 
times,  this  advance  upon  the  old  doctrine  of  Sheol  had 
been  made,  and  in  the  parable  the  rich  man  is  represented 
as  tormented  in  flames  (Luke  xvi.  23-28).  And  pro- 
bably some  traces  of  the  idea  may  be  found  in  the 
Old  Testament,  as  in  the  end  of  Isaiah,  "  for  their  worm 


430   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

shall  not  die,  neither  shall  their  tire  be  quenched  ** 
(Ixvi.   24). 

(3)  But  this  last  passage  leads  to  some  other  questions, 
e.g.y  as  regards  the  connection  of  the  personality  in  8heol 
with  the  body  of  which  it  had  been  deprived,  with  the 
outer  world,  and  with  God. 

As  to  connection  with  the  outer  world,  that  is  com- 
pletely broken  off.  The  dead  can  neither  return,  nor  does  he 
know  anything  of  the  things  of  earth ;  even  the  fate,  happy 
or  miserable,  of  those  he  is  most  bound  up  with,  is  a 
mystery  to  him.  "  His  sons  come  to  honour,  and  he 
knoweth  it  not ;  and  they  are  brought  low,  and  he  perceiveth 
it  not  of  them"  (Job  xiv.  21).  "As  the  cloud  is  consumed 
and  vanisheth  away :  so  he  that  goeth  down  to  the  grave 
shall  come  up  no  more "  (vii.  9).  Yet  with  the  strong 
belief  in  the  existence  of  the  persons  in  Sheol,  there  was 
naturally  a  popular  superstition  that  they  could  be  reached, 
and  that  they  could  be  interested  in  human  affairs,  of  the 
issues  of  which  they  must  have  deeper  knowledge  than 
mortal  men.  This  belief  among  the  Hebrews  gave  rise  to 
the  necromancy  so  sternly  proscribed  in  the  law,  and 
ridiculed  by  Isaiah :  "  Should  not  a  people  seek  unto  their 
God  ?  should  they  seek  for  the  living  to  the  dead  ? "  (viii. 
19);  and  the  belief  is  not  extinct  among  ourselves.  That 
it  was  not  a  mere  superstition,  but  an  unlawful  traffic,  was 
shown  by  the  case  of  Samuel ;  for  there  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  this  a  delusion  of  Saul's,  or  a  trick  of  the  woman. 
At  all  events  the  event  bears  testimony  to  the  prevalent 
belief  in  the  existence  of  those  who  had  died  in  this  life. 
Yet  how  far  the  practice  in  general  was  carried  on  by  mere 
working  on  the  superstitions  of  the  people,  one  cannot  say. 
There  is  no  other  case  in  the  Old  Testament  but  that  of 
Samuel  of  any  dead  person  appearing  and  returning  to 
Sheol.  The  relation  between  the  dead  in  Sheol  and  God 
ia  not  close :  "  Shall  the  dead  praise  Thee  ? "  (Ps.  Ixxxviii. 
iO).     Of  this  more  hereafter. 

The  question  whether  any  connection  still  exists  between 
the  body  and  the  dead  in   Sheol  is  interesting,  but  there 


SIGNIFICANCE   OF   DEATH  431 

are  hardly  materialy  to  answer  it.  No  such  connection 
exists  between  the  body  and  the  soul  as  to  interfere  with 
the  passage  into  Sheol,  wliatever  befall  the  body.  The 
l)ody  needs  not  to  be  enilmlnied,  as  in  Egypt,  nor  burned, 
nor  even  buried.  It  may  be  thrown  out  as  a  dishonoured 
branch,  and  yet  the  descent  into  Sheol  be  unimpeded. 
The  want  of  burial  was  in  itself  dishonouring,  and  it  is 
regarded  as  having  a  reflection  on  the  condition  of  the 
dead  person  in  Sheol  in  the  estimation  of  others  there. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  passages  which  seem  to 
speak  of  a  synipathetic  rapport  still  existing  between  the 
body  and  the  person  in  Sheol.  These  passages  are  hardly 
capable  of  being  pressed  further  than  to  the  inference  that 
the  body,  though  thrown  off,  was  still  part  of  the  man,  and 
was  not  mere  common  unrelated  dust.  Some  passages  speak 
of  sensibility  still  remaining  in  the  body ;  e.g.,  Isa.  Ixvi.  24  : 
"  Their  worm  dieth  not,"  where  the  body  is  represented  as 
feeling  the  tooth  of  the  corrupting  worm.  But  others  go 
further,  and  seem  to  regard  the  soul  as  also  sensitive,  and 
sharing  in  the  pain  of  the  body :  "  His  flesh  upon  him 
shall  have  pain,  and  his  soul  within  him  shall  mourn" 
(Job  xiv.  22).  But,  as  I  have  said,  these  statements 
hardly  go  further  than  to  show  that  the  body,  though  cast 
off,  is  still  considered  in  some  connection  with  the  person. 

The  main  point  is  that  the  relation  between  the 
deceased  person  and  God  is  cut  off.  This  is  what  gave 
death  its  significance  to  the  religious  mind,  and  caused 
such  a  revulsion  against  it,  culminating  in  sucli  protests  as 
tliat  in  Ps.  xvi.  Fellowship  with  God  ceases :  "  In  death 
there  is  no  remembrance  of  Thee :  in  Slieol  wlio  shall  give 
Thee  thanks  ?  "  (Ps.  vi.  5).  "  For  Sheol  cannot  praise  Thee," 
says  Hezekiah ;  "  they  that  go  down  to  the  pit  cannot  hope 
for  Thy  truth"  (Isa.  xxxviii.  18).  And  the  plaintive  singer 
in  Ps.  xxxix.  pleads  for  an  extension  of  his  earthly  life 
on  this  ground :  "  Hold  not  Thy  peace  at  my  tears :  for  I 
am  a  stranger  with  Thee,  and  a  sojourner," — tlic  meaning 
of  these  words  being  the  opposite  of  what,  with  our 
Christian  knowledge,  we  put  into  them.     The  Old  Testament 


432   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

saint  was  a  sojourner  with  God :  this  life  in  the  body  upon 
the  earth  was  a  brief  but  happy  visit  paid  to  Jehovah ;  but 
death  summoned  the  visitor  away,  and  it  came  to  an  end. 


5.  Conception  of  Death, 

The  point  of  view  from  which  Scripture  looks  at  every- 
thing is  the  moral  and  religious.  This  is  the  point  of  view 
from  which  it  regards  the  universe  as  a  whole.  It  is  a 
moral  constitution.  With  all  its  complexity  it  has  a  moral 
unity,  all  its  parts  subserving  moral  ends  and  illustrating 
moral  truths.  Hence,  when  Scripture  describes  the  origin 
of  things  and  their  gradual  rise  into  order,  though  it  may 
seem  to  be  physical  phenomena  that  it  is  describing,  its 
design  has  not  respect  to  these  physical  phenomena  in 
themselves,  but  primarily  to  this,  that  they  occurred  through 
the  free  act  of  a  Supreme  Moral  Agent ;  and  that  they  con- 
templated as  their  final  result  the  preparation  of  a  suitable 
sphere  of  activity  for  another  free  moral  agent.  This  moral 
purpose  of  Scripture  in  everything  which  it  says  makes  it 
of  less  consequence  for  it  to  describe  events  precisely  as 
they  occurred.  It  may  use  liberties.  It  may  so  group 
phenomena  and  so  colour  events  that  the  moral  meaning  of 
them  may  shine  out  to  our  eyes  more  clearly  than  if  it  had 
adhered  in  its  description  to  prosaic  literality.  It  is  quite 
conceivable  that  some  parts  of  ancient  history  are  so 
written  in  Scripture.  Its  design  never  being  to  record 
facts  merely  for  facts'  sake,  but  for  the  sake  of  the 
moral  teaching  which  they  contain,  it  is  a  supposition  not 
to  be  at  once  rejected,  that  in  order  to  exhibit  to  our  dull 
eyesight  the  ideas  of  history,  it  may  idealise  the  history. 
This  principle,  however,  if  admitted,  must  be  carefully 
guarded ;  and  no  doubt  the  difficulty  would  be  to  guard  it 
when  once  admitted.  It  must  be  guarded  for  the  reason  that 
Redemption  is  historical.  Our  salvation  consists  of  historical 
facts  :  "  If  Christ  be  not  risen,  your  faitli  is  vain  ;  ye  are  yet 
in  your  sins"  (1  Cor.  xv.  17)  A  redemption  consisting 
wholly  of  ideas  would,  of  course,  be  only  an  ideal  rodomp- 


MULLER   ON   DEATH  433 

tion,  and  leave  us  precisely  where  we  were.  But  the 
historicity  of  salvation  as  a  whole  being  conserved,  nothing 
stands  in  the  way  of  our  admitting  that  some  of  the 
historical  occurrences  whereby  it  was  illustrated  or  realised 
may  have  been  set  by  subsequent  narrators  in  an  intenser 
light  than  that  in  which  they  first  appeared. 

If  the  point  of  view  from  which  Scripture  regards  the 
universe  as  a  whole  be  moral,  much  more  will  it  regard 
man  in  this  light.  Man  has,  no  doubt,  according  to 
Scripture,  just  as  God  has,  a  nature  and  a  '  self.'  But  his 
essence  and  meaning  lie  so  exclusively  in  his  *  self,'  in 
his  personality,  that  only  when  the  just  equilibrium 
between  his  nature  and  his  '  self '  has  been  disturbed, 
do  the  former  and  its  elements  come  into  prominence. 
His  centre  of  gravity  as  well  as  centre  of  unity  lies  in  his 
moral  constitution.  That  remaining  as  it  was  by  creation, 
he  will  remain  as  he  was  in  creation  a  living  man,  a  unity 
embracing  all  his  parts ;  for  this  is  what  Scripture  means 
by  life.  The  author  of  the  well  written  but  not  very 
exhaustively  thought  out  treatise  on  The  ChrisfAan  Doctrine 
of  Sin,  says :  "  Death  as  a  simple  physical  fact  is  un- 
affected by  moral  conditions."  But  such  a  statement 
requires  limitation  in  several  ways.  We  observe  moral 
conditions  to  be  of  great  influence  in  reference  to  disease, 
in  keeping  off  infection,  for  instance,  and  in  neutralising  the 
effects  of  poison.  We  read  in  the  Gospel  history  of  some 
who  had  faith  to  be  healed,  and  on  the  other  hand  of 
the  infliction  of  mania  through  the  operation  of  evil  intelli- 
gences on  the  mind ;  and  what  is  true  of  disease  is,  of 
course,  true  also  of  death,  for  the  two  are  identical.  The 
forty  days'  fast  of  our  Lord  in  the  wilderness  shows 
sufficiently  the  enormous  power  exercised  over  the  body 
by  the  mind  in  a  high  state  of  spiritual  tension.  Who 
does  not  perceive  that  such  a  statement  as  that  death 
is  unaffected  by  moral  conditions,  is  a  mere  begging  of  the 
question  ? 

Tt  is  true  that  ultimately  all,  moral  and  immoral,  die ; 
just  as  it  is  true  that  death  is  inherent  in  all  organisms 
a8 


434   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

with  which  we  are  familiar.  But  that  impKes  merely  that 
death  affects  all  the  limited  varieties  of  moral  conditions 
now  appearing  in  the  race  since  sin  has  intervened,  and 
that  death  is  inherent  in  human  organisms  such  as  we  now 
know  them.  But  that  fact  can  support  no  inference  as  to 
how  death  or  disease  would  behave  in  the  presence  of  a 
perfect  moral  condition,  and  what  would  occur  to  the 
organism  of  such  a  human  being ;  for  the  difference 
between  the  highest  morality  that  exists  and  a  perfect  one, 
is  a  difference  not  of  degree,  but  of  kind.  Experience 
affords  us  no  data  here  on  which  to  go ;  or  if  we  refer  to 
the  case  of  Christ,  who  was  sinless,  we  read  nothing 
regarding  Him  which  implies  that  He  ever  suffered  any 
ailment,  or  that  the  seeds  of  natural  death  were  sown  in 
His  body.  We  can  form  no  judgment  from  direct  observa- 
tion. We  could  at  most  infer  from  what  we  see  of  men  at 
present.  But  such  an  inference  would  certainly  be  to  beg 
the  question  against  Scripture,  which  expressly  recognises 
the  two  conditions  of  a  perfect  and  an  imperfect  moral 
state,  and  teaches  that  the  organism  of  human  nature  is 
not  a  thing  under  the  government  of  physical  laws  only, 
but  is  lifted  up  by  the  spiritual  nature  of  man  into  another 
plane,  and  subject  in  its  destiny  to  the  operation  of  moral 
laws. 

Coupled  with  this  view,  that  death  is  inherent  in  all 
organisms,  and  that,  consequently,  the  death  threatened  to 
Adam  could  not  mean  mere  physical  death,  is  the  view  of 
the  writer  quoted,  that  death  as  tliere  threatened  was 
merely  the  moral  consequence  of  transgression,  namely, 
what  we  call  spiritual  death,  together  with  the  terrors  that 
gather  about  dying  to  a  sinner.  This  irruption  into  our 
theological  nomenclature  of  the  term  death  to  describe  the 
spiritual  condition  of  a  sinner,  has  been  a  great  misfortune, 
not  only  because  it  affords  a  foundation  for  the  kind  of 
views  propounded  by  this  author,  but  because  it  diverts  our 
minds  from  the  Scripture  way  of  regarding  death  and  life. 
In  the  Old  Testament  and  in  St.  Paul,  death  always 
includes  what  we    popularly  call  dying  \  and  in  the  Old 


DEAD   IN   SINS  435 

Testament  dying  includes  remaining  dead,  i.e.  all  the  destiny 
of  the  dead ;  and  so  life  includes  the  life  of  tlie  body, — 
in  Paul  the  resurrection  life,  which,  as  man  is  a  unity,  alone 
is  life.  Even  the  expression,  'dead  in  sins*  (Eph.  ii.  3,  5), 
does  not  mean  spiritually  insensible  in  tlie  practice  of  sin, 
but  subject  to  death  as  a  penalty  in  the  element  or  region  of 
sins.  There  are,  no  doubt,  certain  expressions,  particularly 
in  this  Epistle  to  the  Eplicsians,  that  may  seem  to  go 
against  this  view,  such,  e.g.,  as  tliis :  "  You  hath  he  quickened, 
who  were  dead  in  trespasses  "  (ii.  1)  ;  "  raised  us  up  together, 
and  made  us  sit  together  in  the  heavenly  places "  (ii.  6). 
But  this  difiiculty  disappears  as  soon  as  the  apostle's  true 
manner  of  looking  at  Christianity  is  understood.  He 
always,  in  the  theoretical  poi'tions  of  his  Epistles,  looks  at 
it  as  a  wliole.  He  uses  terms  of  it  which  embrace  and 
describe  its  perfect  results ;  not  the  beginning,  but  the 
end  of  its  development.  Wliat  it  will  yet  achieve  is  to 
him  already  achieved. 

His  statements  are  not  empirical  and  bounded  by  the 
actual  experience  of  Christians,  but  ideal,  and  reaching  out 
to  the  future  consummation  of  things.  Nay,  he  even  in  his 
ideal  descriptions  employs  the  terms  suitable  for  the  future 
and  perfect  to  describe  the  small  beginnings  of  the  present. 
Hence  to  him  believers  are  as  much  sanctified  as  tliey  are 
justified ;  they  are  saints,  complete  in  Christ.  It  is  only  in 
the  practical  parts  of  his  epistles,  when  he  descends  to  deal 
with  the  actual  condition  of  the  Churches  and  his  converts, 
among  whom,  alas  !  this  ideal  of  Christianity  is  far  enough 
from  yet  obtaining,  that  he  analyses  the  effects  of  redemption 
into  those  that  already  are  and  those  that  shall  be.  Then 
sanctification  is  seen  to  be  incomplete.  Then  the  perfect 
Church  splits  asunder,  and  what  we  name  the  Church 
Visible  is  the  subject  of  treatment,  at  least  in  its  members. 
But  neither  the  imperfect  saint  nor  the  Church  Visible 
belongs  to  the  region  of  the  ideal  of  Christianity,  and 
consequently  they  find  no  place  in  the  early  and  theoretical 
parts  of  the  Epistles.  And  sf»,  speaking  to  the  Ephesians, 
he  uses  terms  descriptive  of  salvation  as  perfectly  realised. 


436   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

to  indicate  what  believers  are  really  in  possession  of.  His 
language  is  in  a  sense  proleptic.  Believers  do  not  yet  sit 
with  Christ  in  the  heavenly  places ;  but  faith  and  grace, 
when  they  shall  have  their  perfect  work,  will  issue  in  their 
resurrection ;  and  this  issue  is  involved  in  those  beginnings 
of  power  which  God  has  already  put  forth  among  them. 
Consequently  the  apostle  does  not  employ  the  terms 
*  quickened '  and  *  raised  *  to  describe  a  mere  spiritual 
change  which  has  already  been  produced.  He  uses  them 
literally,  although  by  anticipation,  to  remind  the  Ephesians 
of  what  is  contained  in  God's  gift  to  them,  and  what 
shall  yet  accrue  to  them,  namely,  the  redemption  of  the 
body. 

I  quite  admit  that,  after  all,  the  two  views  may  coalesce, 
and  that  it  may  be  the  vitalising  of  the  soul  with  spiritual 
life  which  really  quickens  the  body ;  for  the  new  body  is 
not  in  Scripture  regarded  as  alien  matter,  but  is  the  old 
body  vitalised  and  become    spiritual.     And  the   new  life 
instilled   into   the   soul    by  God's  Spirit   may  become    so 
intense,    that,   like   a   flame,  it   stretches    itself    out    and 
communicates  its  fire  to  the  body,  still  its  own  and  not  yet 
altogether  extinct.     We  know  so  little  of  what  life  is,  and 
how  it  operates  to  gather  a  body  about  it.      But  just  as  we 
see  the  somewhat    languid    life  of    our   present  existence 
gradually  add  element  to  element  and  accumulate  in  the 
slow  course  of  twenty  years  a  mature  full  l)ody  to  itself,  so 
the  intenser  life    that  we    shall  yet  inherit   may  on  the 
resurrection  day  draw  a  body  around  itself  in  an  instant, 
accomplishing  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye  what  is  the  work 
of   many  years   at  present.     But  what  I  am   anxious  to 
emphasise  is,  that  Scripture  makes  very  little  in  this  region 
of    physical   cause   and    effect.     Man   is   under   a   moral 
constitution.     Death    is    the    penalty    of    sin,    not    that 
spiritual  feebleness  which  may  be  l^ut  anotlier  name  for  sin 
itself.     And    life    is    the    revmrd    of    rigliteousness,    not 
righteousness  itself.     The  wages  of  sin  is  death ;  but  grace 
reigned  through  righteousness  tinto  eternal  life  (Eom.  v.  21, 
vi.  23). 


ISSUES   OF   LIFE  437 

6.  Life  and  its  Issues. 

But  we  must  leave  this  New  Testament  re<]^ion,  wliicli 
is  always  so  fascinating,  and  return  to  tlio  Old  Testaniont 
and  its  statements  on  the  subject  of  Sheol,  tlie  receptacle  of 
the  departed.  There,  in  that  underworld,  good  and  evil, 
according  to  the  Old  Testament,  appear  alike  immured  ;  and 
the  condition  in  which  they  subsist  is  not  life,  but  bare 
existence,  dreary  and  infelicitous.  Does  the  Old  Testament 
give  any  light  as  to  tlie  permanence  of  this  condition? 
Sheol  does  not  appear  to  be  a  place  of  reward  or  punishment. 
Is  there  any  escape  from  it  for  the  righteous,  or  is  there  any 
intensification  of  its  evils  awaiting  the  unjust  ?  There  is 
no  question  that  is  stirring  men's  minds  with  a  greater 
intensity  at  present  than  this  one  of  the  destiny  of  the 
wicked.      Does  the  Old  Testament  go  any  way  to  solve  it  ? 

Besides  the  view  which  may  be  said  to  be  tlie  ordinary 
and  hereditary  one  in  the  Churches,  there  may  be  said  to 
be  at  present  three  others  current,  besides  minor  ones 
which  I  do  not  mention,  regarding  the  destiny  of  those 
dying  impenitent.  First,  there  is  the  Universalistic  view, 
according  to  which  all  shall  be  restored.  Second,  there 
is  the  view,  stopping  short  of  this,  which  demands  a  place 
of  repentance  and  a  sphere  of  development  beyond  the  grave, 
and  which,  assuming  infinite  gradations  of  salvation,  finds 
a  place  for  at  least  most  of  the  race.  And,  third,  there  is 
the  view,  which  calls  itself  that  of  Conditional  Immortality, 
according  to  which  those  finally  evil  shall  ultimately  be 
annihilated.  Has  the  Old  Testament  anything  to  say  to 
the  question  as  stated  in  these  views  ? 

Now,  of  course,  such  questions  will  not  be  decided  on 
Old  Testament  ground,  but  in  the  light  of  the  clearer 
revelation  of  the  New.  But  so  far  as  the  Old  goes,  it 
does  not,  I  think,  favour  any  of  these  views.  From  all 
that  we  have  seen,  you  will  perceive  that  the  Hebrew  view 
of  things  is  a  view  essentially  concerned  with  things  on  this 
side.  Salvation  is  to  it  a  present  good.  The  moral  con- 
stitution of  the  world  exhibits  itself  already  here.     In  this 


438   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

life  righteousness  delivers  from  death.  This  vivid  manner 
of  conceiving  the  moral  order  of  the  present  constitution  of 
things,  accounts  for  the  fact  that  attention  is  confined  to 
what  falls  on  this  side  almost  exclusively.  Whatever  prin- 
ciples are  involved  in  the  relations  of  God  and  men,  these 
exhibit  themselves  completely  in  the  present  life.  It  is  well 
with  the  righteous, — the  lines  fall  to  him  in  pleasant  places, 
— God  is  the  portion  of  his  soul.  As  to  the  wicked,  he 
says  to  God :  I  desire  not  the  knowledge  of  Thy  ways.  His 
feet  is  set  in  slippery  places.  He  is  brought  down  in  a 
moment  amidst  terrors.  The  principles  prevailing  in  life 
come  out  always  to  perfect  manifestation  in  death.  The 
manner  of  dying  is  certain  to  express  the  true  relations  of 
the  righteous  and  the  wicked.  And  the  manner  of  dying 
fixes  the  condition  of  the  dead ;  and  this  condition  abides. 
All  is  yet  general ;  only  great  principles  of  moral  govern- 
ment appear.  But,  so  far  as  the  Old  Testament  is  con- 
cerned, no  change  seems  indicated  in  the  state  of  the 
unjust,  either  in  the  way  of  release  or  in  the  way  of  an 
intensification  of  the  evils  of  Sheol.  They  die  estranged 
from  God,  they  remain  estranged  ;  the  estrangement  does 
not  appear  aggravated  into  positive  misery.  In  Ecclesi- 
astes,  indeed,  it  is  said  that  God  will  bring  every  work 
into  judgment ;  but  it  cannot  be  said  with  certainty  that 
this  judgment  differs  from  that  passed  on  every  one  at  death, 
and  illustrat^ed  in  his  manner  of  dying.  Neither  in  the 
Apocryphal  ^writings  that  arose  on  the  soil  of  Palestine 
proper  is  there  any  advance  upon  the  Old  Testament 
doctrine,  at  least  till  quite  close  to  the  Christian  era.  In 
the  Greek  Apocrypha  the  case  is  different. 

Scripture  is  chiefly  concerned  with  the  destinies  of  the 
righteous.  And  on  this  side  there  is  great  advance  on 
the  dreary  doctrine  of  Sheol,  which  is  the  popular  basis  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  dead.  And  to  that  I  will  devote  a  few 
remarks. 

The  passages  adduced  already  touching  the  place  and 
state  of  the  dead  are  perliaps  more  poetical  than  dogmatic, 
and  little  can  be  concluded  from  them   beyond  the  cou- 


\ 


QUESTION   OF   NATURAL   IMMORTALITY  439 

tinned  existence  of  the  persons  that  once  lived  upon  the 
earth,  their  consciousness  of  tlieinselves  and  of  others,  their 
complete  exclusion  from  the  world  of  life,  and  their  silent, 
feehle  form  of  subsistence.  But  there  are  also  passages 
which  show  the  other  side  of  the  picture.  Perhaps  as 
those  formerly  adduced  could  not  be  held  to  contain  state-  / 
ments  which  we  should  be  justified  in  treating  as  part  of  / 
a  religious  conviction,  but  were  rather  expressions  of  an 
imagination  very  vivid  and  greatly  stirred,  exercising  itself 
upon  what  was  unknown,  and  clothing  it  in  robes  woven  out 
of  the  things  seen  in  connection  with  death  ;  so  we  might 
not  be  justified  in  attributing  dogmatic  significance  to  the 
statements  regarding  life  and  inmiortality.  They  may  be 
but  jets  of  religious  feeling,  spasmodic  upleapings  of  the 
flame  of  love  of  existence  or  love  of  God,  wliich  flickers 
most  wildly  and  convulsively  just  when  it  is  about 
altogether  to  expire.  What  value  to  attribute  to  them  is 
a  thing  that  perhaps  cannot  be  decided  without  bringing 
them  into  relation  to  the  doctrine  regarding  future  things 
now  fully  revealed  in  the  New  Testament,  But  that  these 
beliefs  appear  in  the  Old  as  bursts  of  religious  feeling,  as 
demands  of  the  living  soul  for  continuance  in  life,  as  long- 
ings of  the  soul  in  fellowship  with  God  for  closer  and 
eternal  fellowship  with  Him,  as  expressions  of  an  instinctive 
shrinking  from  death,  so  far  from  impairing  their  validity 
or  depriving  them  of  meaning,  only  adds  to  it,  by  showing 
how  deeply  seated  the  desire  of  immortality  is  in  the 
nature  of  man  as  given  by  God ;  how  it  rises  higher  the 
higher  the  nature  is  purified  by  God's  fellowship ;  and 
how  probable,  therefore,  in  itself  it  is  that  immortality  shall 
be  its  goal  and  reward. 

Man,  so  far  as  we  can  gather  from  the  narrative  in  | 
Genesis,  was  made  neither  mortal  nor  immortal.  He  was  • 
not  made  so  that  he  must  die,  for  the  narrative  represents 
him  surrounded  by  the  means  of  living  for  ever ;  nor  was 
he  so  made  that  he  could  not  die,  for  the  event  has  too 
clearly  shown  the  reverse.  He  was  made  capable  of  not 
dying,  with  the  design  that  by  a  free  determination  of  his 


440   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

activity  rewarded  by  God's  favour,  he  should  become  not 
capable  of  dying.  He  siuued,  and  when  he  sinned  he 
died.  But  death  is  thus  a  foreign  thing,  an  evil  befallen 
man,  the  child  of  sin,  Wliere  sin  is,  death  is.  But  surely 
the  other  thouglit  could  not  but  be  immediately  suggested, 
— seeing  if  sin  had  not  been,  death  would  not  have  been, — 
that  when  sin  should  be  overcome,  death  would  be  van- 
quished also.  To  overcome  sin  is  to  live.  This  is  every- 
where the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  Yet  in  the  earliest 
portions  of  Scripture  the  truth  is  not  put  quite  in  this 
manner.  It  is  not  freedom  from  sin  that  gives,  or  that 
is,  life,  so  much  as  fellowship  with  God.  Sin  is  regarded 
as  an  enfeebling  of  the  soul,  a  drugging  of  the  soul  by  a 
deadly  narcotic,  an  impairing  of  its  vital  energy.  That 
which  pours  life  into  the  enfeebled,  paralysed  spirit  is 
God's  Spirit,  and  so  is  God.  In  Him,  with  Him,  is  life. 
Thus  the  early  Scriptures  overleap  a  step.  They  do  not 
so  much  speak  of  righteousness  being  life,  as  of  God,  who  is 
the  cause  of  righteousness,  giving   life. 

This  is  perhaps  the  state  of  the  belief  in  the  earliest 
times.  This  seems  the  idea  at  the  root  of  the  Mosaic 
economy.  There  is  no  allusion  there  to  a  future  life.  Yet 
there  are  life  and  death  set  before  the  Israelite.  Are  we  to 
suppose  it  was  only  earthly  life,  worldly  goods,  the  quiet 
heritage  of  Canaan,  freedom  from  peril  and  sword  ?  Life  lay 
in  God's  favour,  in  His  presence  and  fellowship.  The  religious 
life  of  Mosaism  was  as  real  as  our  own,  and  as  true.  What 
the  patriarchs  are  represented  as  looking  forward  to  was  not 
the  rest  of  Canaan,  but  abiding  with  God, — a  settled  near- 
ness to  Him  and  fellowship  with  Him.  They  sought  *  a 
country ' — which  the  New  Testament  writer,  from  his  point 
of  view,  interprets  as  a  heavenly  one  (Heb.  xi.  16).  They 
looked  for  the  "  city  that  hath  the  foundations,  whose 
builder  and  maker  is  God"  (Heb.  xi.  10).  What  thoughts 
they  may  have  had,  one  can  hardly  imagine.  Yet  what 
they  sought,  and  what  they  felt  called  to,  in  all  their 
wanderings,  was  some  stable  place  of  abode, — some  country, 
some  city  of  God,  where  He  dwelt,  and  where  they  should 


THE    OBJECT    OF    HOPE  441 

dwell  witli  Him  ;  where  tlieir  life  sliould  run  on  for  ever 
parallel  to  God's.  lie  was  the  element  of  satisfaction  that 
they  sought,  and  that  constituted  their  life. 

And  so  it  was  with  the  pious  Israelite  when  settled  in 
Canaan.  He  thought  nothing  good,  notliing  to  be  desired, 
which  was  severed  from  the  fellowship  of  God.  The  external 
goods  which  he  enjoyed,  he  considered  but  the  pledge  of 
this.  But  there  is  little,  if  any,  sign  of  that  analytic 
tendency,  which  we  cannot  resist,  to  distinguish  between 
this  world  and  another.  To  the  Israelite  both  worlds  were 
united  in  one.  He  enjoyed  both.  He  drew  a  distinction 
between  this  world  without  God  and  this  world  with  God. 
The  wicked  had  the  former  and  he  the  latter.  God  was 
his  portion,  and  the  lines  had  fallen  to  him  in  pleasant 
places.  The  future  he  seldom  strove  to  unveil.  Still,  if 
he  did,  we  can  imagine  what  feelings  the  thought  would 
arouse :  it  would  either  be  a  pitiful  entreaty  that  God  would 
not  interrupt  that  blessed  fellowship  by  death  :   "  1   said, 

0  my  God,  take  me  not  away  in  the  midst  of  my  days  " 
(Ps.  cii.  24): 

"  Return  0  Jehovah,  deliver  my  soul : 
0  save  me  for  Thy  mercy's  sake. 
For  in  death  there  is  no  remembrance  of  Thee  ; 
In  Sheol  who  shall  give  Thee  thanks  ? "  (Ps.  vi.  4,  5). 

or  it  would  be  a  violent  resistance  and  putting  down  of  the 
thought  of  death.  It  could  not,  it  must  not  be,  that  this 
blessed  fellowship  should  ever  be  broken :  "  I  have  set  the 
Lord  always  before  me  :  because  He  is  at  my  right  hand, 

1  shall  not  be  moved  "  (Ps.  xvi.  8). 

So  far,  what  we  have  seen  was  the  certain  faith  in, 
God  and  life  in  Him.  This  was  conviction  and  thought. 
Rising  out  of  that  was,  perhaps,  more  the  emotional  feeling 
of  immortality — the  dread  of  dying,  the  passionate  longing 
for  life — the  refusal  to  conceive  or  to  admit  that  this  life 
with  God  lived  on  earth  could  come  to  an  end.  Yet 
perhaps  there  was  no  intellectual  presentation  to  the  mind 
itself  of  the  way  in  which  it  could  be  continued.  Still 
certain  things  narrated  in  the  Pentateuch   might  suggest 


442   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

to  the  saints  of  tliose  and  after  times  even  a  way.  That 
wonderful  glory  recorded  to  have  been  vouclisafed  to  Enoch, 
of  whom  it  was  said  that  he  "  walked  with  God,"  showed 
that  the  reward  of  the  closest  fellowship  with  God  might 
be  rapture  into  God's  presence  without  tasting  of  death — 
"for  God  took  him"  (Gen.  v.  24).  And  this  word  took  laid 
deep  hold  of  men's  minds  in  this  connection.  For  the  sorely 
troubled  Asaph,  when  he  came  to  clearness  and  peace,  at 
last  comforted  himself  that  God  would  take  him  also : 

"Thou  slialt  guide  me  with  Thy  counsel, 
And  afterward  take  nie  to  glory  "  (Ps.  Ixxiii.  24). 

This  glory  of  Enoch's  was  what  few  could  liope  for  as 
it  had  fallen  to  him  ;  yet  the  way  in  which  Asaph  conceives 
it,  was  the  way  those  contemporary  with  Enoch  and  sub- 
sequent to  him  could  hardly  help  conceiving  it.  What  had 
befallen  him  who  walked  with  God  marvellously,  in  this 
marvellous  way,  would  befall  them  who  walked  with  Him  in 
an  ordinary  way,  in  a  manner  equally  real  if  less  marvellous. 
And,  in  addition  to  this,  there  was  the  general  faith  in 
God's  power,  and  that  He  was  able  to  bring  again  the  dead. 
Thus  Abraham,  being  strong  in  faith,  staggered  not  at  the 
promise  of  God  through  unbelief,  but  offered  up  his  son 
when  commanded,  though  the  promise  was  made  to  him, 
accounting  that  God  was  able  to  raise  him  up  even  from 
the  dead  (Heb.  xi.  19).  Such  miracles,  too,  as  are 
narrated  of  Elijah  would  also  familiarise  men's  minds  with 
the  possibility  of  the  dead  again  living. 
^  Thus  we  should  anticipate  that  the  minds  of  Old 
j  Testament  saints  would  run  in  two  lines  in  this  matter  of 
'  the  hope  of  immortality, — one  line  emotional  and  another 
reflective,  though  the  emotional  may  also  have  under  it 
reflection  of  various  kinds,  chiefly  on  the  evils  or  the 
inequalities  of  life.  The  emotional  utterances  will  chiefly 
rise  from  the  feeling  of  fellowship  with  God,  which  is 
life,  and  take  the  form  of  protests  against  the  thought 
of  its  being  broken  in  upon  ;  and  these  reaches  of  feeling 
into  eternity  will  be  brief  and  rarely  sustained,  and  seldom 


NINETIETH    PSALM  448 

reasoned.  Indeed,  tlioy  will  generally  ground  themselves 
with  a  ceitain  absoluteness  simply  (kn  the  sense  of  fellow- 
ship, and  refuse  to  take  all  other  facts,  even  death, 
into  consideration.  The  reflective  utterances,  again,  will 
naturally  accept  of  facts,  such  as  the  universality  of  death, 
and  seek  to  dispose  of  them.  Thus,  what  the  emotional 
utterances  bring  forward  will  rather  be  immortality^  i.e.  never 
dying.  What  the  reflective  utterances  bring  forward  will 
be  resurrection.  And,  as  was  to  be  anticipated,  the  ex- 
pressions of  emotion  will  appear  in  lyrics,  in  plaintive  ; 
elegies, — the  productions  of  deeply  exercised  religious  men. 
The  expressions  of  reflection  will  rather  come  from  prophets, 
men  who  have  a  clear  outlook  into  the  things  of  the  future, 
and  who  are  set  to  indicate  with  autliority  to  the  Church 
the  final  developments  of  her  history. 

We  cannot  fully  pursue  these  two  lines.  It  must 
suffice  to  project  them,  and  to  linger  for  a  little  at  one 
point  in  each.  The  passages  where  the  Old  Testament 
saint  appears  striving  to  maintain  his  fellowship  with  the 
living  God  in  spite  of  all  vicissitudes,  are  chiefly  Pss.  xvi., 
xvii.,  xlix.,  Ixxiii.,  and  the  Book  of  Job.  The  state  of  the 
believer's  mind  in  Ps.  xvi.  does  not  materially  differ  from 
that  disclosed  in  the  great  passages  of  Job.  But  there  is 
another  psalm  which  forms  the  fitting  background  to  this 
one,  at  which  we  may  look  for  a  moment,  Ps.  xc,  headed, 
*  A  Prayer  of  Moses  the  man  of  God.'  Whether  the  Psalm 
be  so  old  or  no,  it  is  very  old,  and  little  that  is  plausible 
can  be  said  against  its  traditional  age.  It  might  be  called 
an  elegy  on  the  brevity  of  human  life.  But  such  general 
subjects  never  were  treated  alone  by  a  Hebrew  poet.  If 
he  deplored  an  evil,  he  was  always  struggling  for  a  remedy. 
The  remedy  of  this  he  finds  in  the  eternal  God.  The 
Psalm  might  be  headed  :  *  The  eternal  God  a  refuge  for  man, 
shortlived  by  reason  of  his  sin.'  First,  the  poet  posits  the 
relation  of  God  to  men :  "  Thou  hast  been  a  dwelling-place 
for  us  in  all  generations."  This  relation  of  God  to  men  is 
the  theme  of  tTie  Psalm,  which  consists,  then,  of  a  further 
statement   how  God  is  this,  and   how  men   need   it,  and, 


444   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

finally,  of  a  prayer  that  God  would  cause  the  relation  to 
be  fully  realised  in  the  case  of  those  now  praying.  The 
words  "  in  all  generations "  suggest  the  eternal  sameness 
of  God,  over-against  the  brevity  of  man's  life.  "  From  ever- 
lasting to  everlasting,  Thou  art  God.  Thou  turnest  man 
to  destruction,"  i.e.  Thou  seest  men,  generation  after  genera- 
tion, perish,  Thyself  still  eternal  and  living :  for  a  thousand 
years  in  Thy  sight  are  but  as  yesterday.  Men  are  like 
the  grass,  which,  springing  in  the  morning,  witliereth  ere 
night.  But  this  short-livedness  of  men  in  opposition  to 
the  eternal,  unmoved  duration  of  Jehovah,  is  not  without 
a  cause.  It  is  not  merely  that  He  lives  and  they  die, 
each  from  his  appropriate  nature.  They  die  because  they 
are  consumed  in  His  anger.  He  hath  set  their  sins  in  the 
light  of  His  face,  turned  His  full  face  with  awful  light 
upon  them. 

This  is  the  condition  of  men,  sinful  and  perishing 
because  they  are  so.  The  Psalm  expresses  general  and 
universal  relations.  God  eternal,  men  of  transient  exist- 
ence, and  that  because  God's  wrath  carries  them  away  in 
their  sins.  Yet,  also,  there  is  another  general  relation  to 
be  added :  "  Thou  art  our  dwelling-place,  our  refuge,  in  all 
generations."  He  who  carries  sinful  men  away  with  a  flood, 
the  overflow  of  His  wrath,  is  their  refuge.  In  God  is  the 
hiding-place  from  the  anger  of  God.  In  Him,  the  Eternal, 
man  that  is  of  few  days  finds  his  refuge.  And  so  the 
Psalmist  concludes  with  the  prayer :  "  Eeturn,  0  Lord  ;  how 
long  ?  and  pity  Thy  servants.  Satisfy  us  in  the  morning 
with  Thy  goodness ;  that  we  may  be  glad,  and  rejoice  all 
our  days."  This  may  be  the  cry  of  a  generation  worn  out 
with  wanderings,  and  sick  with  disappointed  hopes,  and 
sated  with  plagues,  dropping  down  one  after  another  like 
an  enchanted  caravan  in  the  wilderness ;  but  it  is  fit  to  be 
the  cry  and  the  confession  and  the  prayer  of  a  worn  and 
heavy-laden  human  race,  to  God,  under  whose  anger  it 
perishes. 

What  is  spoken  generally  in  Ps.  xc.  is  expressed  par- 
ticularly  in    the   words    of    a    single    person    in   Ps.    xvi 


SIXTEENTH    PSALM  445 

Who  the  person  is  we  cannot  certainly  say.  But  David's 
^'avourite  word  heads  the  IVahn,  "H?  ^^^^^,  "  I  liave  fled  for 
refuge  to  Thee,"  as  hi  vii.  and  xi.  ;  and  tlie  tra,(htion  puts 
his  name  in  tlie  heading.  Wliat  the  dangers  were  wliicli 
threatened  liim,  must  remain  uidvuown ;  but  we  know  that 
it  was  a  mortal  danger.  His  life  was  at  stake ;  and  he 
presses  close  to  Jehovah,  the  living  God,  to  protect  him 
from  the  death  that  sought  to  assail  him. 

First  when  he  begins  to  speak,  he  has  already  taken 
refuge  in  Jeliovah ;  pursued  by  dangers,  he  has  sought 
safety  in  Him :  and  being  in  Him  he  prays  that  He  would 
not  deliver  him  up  to  his  pursuers :  "  Keep  me,  0  God :  for 
I  have  lied  to  Thee."  Speedily  in  that  refuge  his  terror 
seems  to  pass  away,  and  he  speaks  calmly,  and  even  with 
assurance,  of  eternal  safety.  Partly  he  addresses  God  and 
partly  he  soliloquises.  It  is  the  believing  consciousness 
thinking  aloud.  And  the  thoughts  that  would  fill  a  mind 
at  such  a  time  would  be  something  like  these :  first,  there 
would  be  joy  in  Jehovah ;  which  might  very  naturally 
suggest  the  unhappy  lot  of  those  who  sought  their  joy  in 
aught  else.  And,  as  the  mind  passed  from  antithesis  to 
antithesis,  this  thought  would  drive  it  back  again  with 
increased  intensity  to  the  feeling  of  its  own  blessedness. 
And  then,  when  from  its  refuge  it  looked  abroad  on  its 
foes,  that  had  just  pursued  it  to  its  dwelling-place,  this 
blessedness  would  throw  its  colour  over  them  all,  and  a 
Dold  defiance  of  them  would  be  felt. 

This  seems  just  the  line  of  thought  in  the  Psalm. 
First,  the  mind's  joy  in  Jehovah :  "  I  said  to  Jehovah, 
Thou  art  my  Lord,  my  joy ;  delight  is  in  none  but  Thee." 
The  use  of  the  word  Lord  seems  to  indicate  the  complete 
devotion  of  the  speaker  to  Jehovah.  Then  comes  the 
natural  passage  of  the  mind  to  other  minds,  unlike  itself, 
finding  thr^r  joy  in  something  else,  "IHN  ;  "  their  sorrows 
are  many  who  seek  for  themselves  aught  else " :  "I  will 
not  pour  out  their  drink-ofTerings  of  blood,  and  I  will  not 
take  their  names  on  my  lips."  If  the  Psalm  be  Davidic, 
these  expressions  must   be   taken  figuratively.     It  is  not 


446   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

probable  tliat  in  his  day  there  was  any  party  actually 
practising  idolatrous  rites  in  the  kingdom.  But  there 
were,  no  doubt,  many  irreligious  men,  chiefly  among  the 
supporters  of  Saul's  dynasty ;  and  many  who  secretly,  and 
some  who  openly,  repudiated  Jehovah,  the  God  of  David. 
In  words  of  strong  aversion,  the  Psalmist  speaks  of  their 
religious  services  as  drink-offerings  of  blood. 

But,  with  a  natural  swing,  the  mind  reverts  to  its  own 
blessedness :  "  Jehovah  is  my  portion,"  ver.  5, — *  Jehovah  ' 
being  put  emphatically  at  the  head  of  the  clause.  And 
every  possible  figure  is  heaped  together  to  express  the  idea 
that  Jehovah  is  the  possession  of  the  speaker,  and  to  convey 
what  the  j(jy  of  this  possession  is  to  him.  "  Jehovah  is 
the  portion  of  my  inheritance  and  my  cup :  Thou  art  my 
constant  lot.  The  lines  have  fallen  to  me  in  pleasant 
things."  And,  unable  to  restrain  himself,  he  breaks  forth 
into  the  exclamation,  "  I  will  bless  the  Lord." 

But,  finally,  from  being  occupied  with  the  contempla- 
tion of  his  position,  and  his  joy  there,  he  now  looks  out 
upon  his  foes ;  and  he  feels  confident  that  where  he  is  they 
cannot  come.  In  that  hiding-place  to  which  he  has  fled 
he  is  secure,  all  secure,  his  whole  man — not  secure  merely, 
but  triumphantly  confident:  "My  heart  is  glad,  and  my 
glory  rejoices;  my  flesh  also  resteth  securely."  For  that 
Sheol,  which  opened  her  mouth  wide  to  swallow  him,  God 
will  beat  back ;  and  that  pit,  which  yawned  for  him,  he 
shall  not  see :  "  Thou  wilt  not  leave  my  soul  over  to  Sheol, 
nor  give  Thine  holy  one  to  see  the  pit."  What  he  shall 
experience  will  be  life, — "  Thou  wilt  make  me  know  the 
way  of  life," — the  way  to  life.  Not  death,  but  life,  shall  be 
his  portion. 

Now,  if  we  consider  the  lie  of  the  Psalm,  first  the  flight 
of  the  suppliant  to  God  to  protect  him  from  some  mortal 
danger,  then  his  sohloquising  with  himself  over  his  blessed- 
ness in  God,  and  then  his  outlook  from  his  place  of  refuge, 
from  which  he  dares  to  face  and  to  defy  his  pursuers,  we 
can  hardly  escape  the  conclusion  that  what,  in  his  lofty 
moment   of   inspiration,  he  expresses,  is  the  assurance  of 


SIXTEENTH    PSALM  447 

immortality.  He  shall  uot  die,  but  live.  God,  to  whom  lie 
has  fled,  will  not  leave  him  to  Shcol ;  it  shall  not  be  [ler- 
mitted  to  have  its  desire  n])on  him,  to  swallow  him  up ; 
neither  will  He  allow  him  to  see,  i.e.  to  have  experience  of 
the  pit.  He  to  wlioni  he  has  fled  will  save  him  from  those 
dark  enemies  that  would  devour  him.  Also  He  will  save 
him  wholly.  He  tlie  living  man,  in  the  fellowship  and 
protection  of  the  living  God,  shall  live.  He  does  not  con- 
template dying  and  being  restored  again  to  life.  Ptather 
these  gigantic  personalities,  Slieol,  Sliachath,  that  open  tlicir 
mouth  for  him,  shall  have  no  power  over  him.  He  shall  be 
made  to  know  the  way  to  life.  And  it  was  life  such  as 
then  he  lived,  only  fuller;  not  spiritual  life,  nor  bodily 
life,  but  personal  life,  embracing  all.  These  distinctions, 
which  we  insist  so  much  upon,  vanish  in  the  excitation  of 
such  a  moment.  And  it  is  ridiculous  to  imagine  that  the 
hopes  of  one  who  speaks  thus  went  no  further  than  delivery 
from  some  particular  mortal  danger  that  threatened  him  at 
the  time.  Some  such  danger  may  have  started  the  train 
of  thoughts  and  feelings  which  here  run  out  to  so  sublime 
a  height,  but  the  expressions  here  are  absolute.  He  who 
trusteth  in  God  shall  live;  Sheol  and  Shacliath  shall  have 
no  power  over  him. 

We  need  not  stop  to  discuss  how  far  such  feelings  are 
true,  and  how  even  death  is  not  death  to  the  righteous. 
For  such  is  not  strictly  the  meaning  of  the  Psalm.  We 
shall  only  say  that,  although  to  all  appearance  the  Psalm 
expresses  the  idea  of  not  dying,  yet  it  may  be  applied  to 
any  who,  having  died,  cannot  be  held  of  death.  The  Psalm 
teaches  that  those  who  have  perfect  fellowship  with  God 
shall  not  die.  It  does  not  go  into  the  grounds  of  this,  as 
other  parts  of  Scripture  do,  which  show  God  to  be  life  and 
giving  life ;  and  that  the  creature  in  such  fellowship  with 
Him  partakes  of  His  immortal  strength,  and  dieth  not.  It 
only  expresses  the  relation,  and  the  consequences  that  flow 
from  it.  But  anyone  in  such  perfect  fellowship  cannot 
die.  If  death  fall  upon  him,  it  must  be  out  of  the  course 
of  things,  the  result  of  a  special  economy,  in  which  that 


448   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

which  is  the  natural  order  is  suspended.  But  when  this 
suspension  is  removed,  things  will  flow  in  their  accustomed 
order.  He  who  died  under  a  special  economy  will  live 
under  the  natural  law.  And  hence  the  words  of  this 
Psalm  may  be  very  fitly  applied  to  such  an  One  as  in 
Acts  ii.  31. 

A  superficial  criticism  used  to  find  in  our  Lord's  proof 
of  the  resurrection,  taken  from  the  words  of  God  to  Moses 
in  '  the  Bush,'  "  /  am  the  God  of  Abraham, "  an  artificiality. 
His  commentary  is,  God  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  of 
the  living ;  and  His  conclusion,  therefore,  Abraham  shall 
again  live.  If  I  might  say  so,  our  Lord's  argument  is  an 
Old  Testament  commonplace.  It  is  the  argument,  so  far  as 
it  can  be  so  called,  of  all  Old  Testament  saints.  It  is  the 
argument  of  this  Psalm  and  of  all  the  Psalms.  What  they 
postulate  from  fellowship  with  God  is  life, — escape  from 
Sheol,  not  experiencing  Shachath  ;  and  if,  in  fact,  they  have 
fallen  into  the  power  of  these,  neither  their  faith  nor  their 
words  can  be  satisfied  without  release  from  them.  And, 
again,  what  their  words  and  their  faith  require  is  not  an 
immortality  of  the  soul ;  such  a  thing  would  have  sounded 
strange  to  them.  They  knew  of  persons  only,  not  souls ; 
and  their  faith  demanded  the  life  of  the  whole  person. 
But,  in  strictness,  the  argument  for  the  resurrection  here 
is  not  direct  but  constructive.  It  is  an  argument  for 
immortality,  for  not  dying,  —  an  argument  that  ignores 
facts  like  death ;  and  only  when  this  fact  of  death  comes 
in  its  way  does  it  become  modified  into  an  argument  for 
resurrection.  The  apostle  expresses  this  view  when  he 
says :  "  The  body,  indeed,  is  dead  because  of  sin ;  but  the 
Spirit  is  life  because  of  righteousness  "  (Kom.  viii.  10). 

The  hope  of  Job  differed  altogether  from  the  hope 
of  this  Psalmist;  because  Job,  when  he  spoke,  was  in 
estrangement  from  God.  And  in  this  life  he  could  not 
hope  for  reconciliation ;  for  his  malady,  wliich  betokened 
God's  anger,  he  saw,  would  be  mortal.  Yet  what  his  faith, 
in  spite  of  appearances,  made  certain  to  him  was,  that  he 
would  see  God  in   reconciliation  and   in   peace.     It  is  a 


THE  OPERATION  OF  REFLECTION       449 

reuniting  that  his  faith  demands.  Whether  it  is  of  his 
wliole  being  or  no  is  left  by  the  words  rather  obscure, 
fchougli  tlie  general  drift  of  tlie  Old  Testament  would  point 
to  the  former.  But  this  Psalmist  has  not  words  enough  to 
express  his  present  blessedness  in  union  with  God,  and 
what  he  protests  against  is  any  interruption  of  it.  His 
faith  demands  that  his  whole  spirit  and  soul  and  body  be 
preserved  entire  in  fellowship  with  God  for  ever.  The 
other  Psalms  which  have  been  named  add  little  if  anything 
to  the  details  of  Ps.  xvi. 

The  other  point  from  which  immortality  was  viewed 
was  reflection ;  and  as  this,  unlike  emotion  and  faith,  which 
ignored  facts,  took  facts  into  consideration,  it  produced 
the  doctrine  of  a  resurrection.  It  was  the  prophets  who 
raised  and  prosecuted  this  thought  specially ;  and,  as  was 
proper  to  their  office,  it  was  in  connection  with  Israel  as 
a  people  that  they  chiefly  proclaimed  the  resurrection. 
Israel  in  fellowship  with  God  would  have  lived  for  ever ; 
but,  like  Adam,  Israel  sinned  and  died :  "  When  Ephraim 
offended  in  Baal,  he  died,"  says  Hosea  (xiii.  1).  And  all 
the  prophets  downwards  are  familiar  with  the  idea  of 
Israel's  dissolution  from  which  nothing  can  now  save 
him.  But  with  the  sentence  of  dissolution  came  also 
the  promise  of  restitution.  Isaiah  embodies  this  hope, 
in  the  very  image  used  by  Job  as  unsuitable  to  man, 
the  image  of  the  tree  sprouting  again  (Ixv.  22),  and 
in  plain  words :  "  The  remnant  shall  return."  But  his 
contemporary  Hosea,  who  employs  the  figure  of  death, 
employs  also  that  of  resurrection :  "  Let  us  return  unto 
the  Lord.  After  two  days  He  will  revive  us  :  and  the  third 
day  He  will  raise  us  up,  and  we  shall  live  in  Ilis  sight" 
(vi.  2).  And  the  power  of  death  over  them  shall  be 
altogether  destroyed:  "I  will  ransom  them  from  the  power 
of  the  grave ;  I  will  redeem  them  from  deatli :  O  death,  I 
will  be  thy  plagues ;  0  grave,  I  will  be  thy  destruction  " 
(xiii.  14). 

These  tilings  arc  certainly  said  of  the  people,  for  the 
plural  refers  to  the  tribes  rather  than  to  individuala     BuC 

29 


450   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

the  idea  of  resurrection  is  very  broadly  presented,  and  we 
wonder  whether  it  is  for  tlie  first  time  that  it  arises,  or 
whether  it  be  not  rather  an  idea,  ahe;idy  more  or  less 
familiar,  applied  to  a  new  subject.  On  the  one  hand,  such 
miracles  as  those  narrated  of  Elijah  must  have  powerfully 
affected  men's  minds,  even  although  those  raised  by  him 
ultimately  succumbed  to  death.  Such  events  would  at 
least  furnish  the  imagery  used  here,  and  make  it  both 
intelligible  and  very  well  fitted  to  inspire  hope.  On  the 
other,  it  is  certainly  first  in  connection  with  the  tribes  and 
people  that  the  idea  of  resurrection  is  plainly  expressed, 
and  the  individual  Israelites  share  it  because  Israel  shares 
it.  But  the  idea  once  struck  by  the  prophet  Hosea  is 
familiar  to  every  succeeding  prophet ;  and  whether  Hosea 
used  the  term  raise  figuratively  or  no,  succeeding  prophets 
use  it  literally.  In  some  cases,  as  in  the  great  prophecy  of 
Ezekiel  of  the  valley  of  dry  bones,  we  may  be  in  doubt 
wliether  the  prophet  refers  to  the  actual  raising  of  in- 
dividuals dead,  or  to  the  restoration  of  dismembered  tribes, 
and  a  renewal  of  the  national  life.  But  even  if  it  is  to 
the  latter,  his  imagery  reposes  on  the  familiar  thought  of 
individuals  rising.  The  valley  seemed  full  of  bones,  very 
dry ;  but  bone  came  to  his  bone,  and  flesh  came  up  upon 
them,  and  by  the  breath  of  God  they  lived,  and  stood  upon 
their  feet. 

If,  in  the  case  of  Hosea,  the  idea  of  the  national  resur- 
rection was  first,  and  was  transferred  to  the  resurrection  of 
the  individual,  in  Ezekiel  the  order  of  thought  is  certainly 
the  reverse ;  the  national  resurrection  reposes  on  the  fully 
won  idea  of  that  of  the  individual.  Again,  in  the  singular 
prophecy  in  Isa.  xxvi.  this  is  quite  as  true :  "  Thy  dead 
men  shall  live ;  awake  and  sing,  ye  that  dwell  in  the  dust." 
And  in  Daniel  it  is  no  more  said  of  the  people,  but  of 
individuals  directly,  though,  from  the  contested  age  of 
Daniel,  we  cannot  be  certain  how  early  the  passage  is : 
"  There  shall  be  a  time  of  trouble,  such  as  never  was  since 
there  was  a  nation  even  to  that  same  time :  and  at  that 
time  thy  people  shall  be  delivered,  every  one  that  shall  be 


THE   WISDOM    LITERATURE  451 

found  written  in  the  book.  And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in 
the  dust  of  the  earth  shall  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life, 
and  some  to  shame  and  everlasting  contempt.  And  they 
that  be  wise  shall  shine  as  the  brightness  of  the  firmament ; 
and  they  that  turn  many  to  righteousness  as  the  stars  for 
ever  and  ever"  (Dan.  xii.  1,  2).  While  in  other  passages 
only  a  resurrection  of  Israel  is  spoken  of,  and  where  indi- 
viduals are  referred  to  we  have  only  a  resurrection  of  the 
just ;  here  there  seems  taught  a  resurrection  both  of  the 
just  and  of  the  unjust. 

Now,  of  course,  these  utterances  are  of  the  nature,  much 
of  them,  of  subjective  hopes.  They  are  based  upon  the 
relation  to  God — a  relation  of  fellowship  and  love.  This 
relation,  the  soul  demands,  shall  not  be  interrupted.  It 
protests  against  death.  It  overleaps  Sheol  in  the  vigour  of 
its  faith.  This  is  the  position  of  the  Old  Testament  saint. 
Has  his  hope  been  verified  ?  In  Christ  it  has  been  verified, 
in  Him  as  an  Old  Testament  saint,  as  One  who  was  truly 
a  Holy  One.  And  in  Him  those  united  to.  Him  by  faith 
shall  have  the  verification  of  it  also  in  themselves. 

The  history  of  the  creation  presents  man  living  and  in 
true  relations  with  God.  This  is  the  ideal  condition  of 
man,  and  the  idea  of  its  permanence  is  implied  in  the 
relation.  The  conception  of  man  is  entirely  a  moral  one. 
This  relation  to  God  is  the  central  point.  This  remaining, 
all  other  things  are  permanent.  Such  ideas  as  that  the  soul 
is  immortal  from  its  nature,  or,  on  the  other  hand,  that  the 
body  is  necessarily  subject  to  decay  from  its  nature,  do  not 
occur.  The  Old  Testament  strictly  knows  nothing  of  such 
elements  of  the  being  of  man ;  the  living  man  as  a  whole 
person  is  the  subject  of  its  contemplation,  and  he  lives  in 
the  continuance  of  his  true  relations  to  God.  This  is  the 
point  of  view  of  the  history  of  creation.  It  is  also  the 
point  of  view  of  the  Wisdom  literature  in  its  earliest  stage, 
the  stage  of  what  might  be  called  principles,  where  only 
the  ideal  conceptions  of  man  and  the  world,  and  their 
relations  to  God,  appear.  Such  conceptions  are  expressed  in 
proverbial  form  in  these  terms :  *'  In  the  way  of  righteous- 


452   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

ness  is  life,  and  the  pathway  thereof  is  immortaUty  " ;  "  The 
hoary  head  is  a  crown  of  glory ;  it  is  found  in  the  way  of 
righteousness"  (Prov.  xii.  28,  xvi.  31).  The  E.V.  misreads 
the  latter  passage,  and  obscures  its  teaching  by  translating 
"  if  it  be  found  in  the  way  of  righteousness."  The  meaning 
is  as  in  the  other  passage :  "  The  fear  of  the  Lord  pro- 
longeth  days ;  but  the  years  of  the  wicked  shall  be  shortened  " 
(Prov.  X.  27).  Such  passages  do  not  refer  to  cases  only; 
they  state  a  yrinciple.  To  the  Hebrew  mind  this  life  in 
the  body  was  the  normal  life.  He  had  no  doctrine  of  a 
transcendent  place  of  happiness  different  from  earth,  where 
the  principles  of  God's  government,  impeded  in  their  flow 
here  by  many  obstacles,  should  roll  on  smooth  and  straight. 
He  saw  these  principles  realised  here.  The  blessedness 
of  the  just,  arising  from  the  fellowship  of  God,  was  enjoyed 
here.  And  in  the  contemplation  of  this,  ihQ  fact  of  death 
was  ignored.  At  least  this  is  the  point  of  view  in  the  early 
Wisdom  literature, — in  the  deep  flow  of  the  principles  that 
regulate  the  relation  of  God  and  man,  death  is  submerged. 

The  theory  that  the  doctrine  of  immortality  was  kept 
hid  from  Israel  in  order  that  the  attention  of  the  people 
might  be  fastened  on  the  conditions  of  a  moral  life  here, 
fails  to  take  into  account  this  point  of  view  from  which 
we  must  always  start.  A  normal  Ufe  here  was  im- 
mortality. The  doctrine  of  immortality  was  already  given 
to  the  people  in  this  conception :  life  was  the  existence 
of  the  whole  man  in  the  body,  this  life  was  had  in 
fellowship  with  God,  and  this  fellowship  was  indissoluble ; 
for  in  the  conception  they  had  of  the  world  their 
condition  in  it  truly  represented  the  relations  of  God  to 
men.  Of  course,  all  this  was  in  some  respects  ideal,  and 
facts  were  opposed  to  it.  But  the  doctrine  of  immortality 
was  given  in  the  idea  and  in  the  consciousness  of  the  living 
saint ;  and  the  task  of  after  revelation  was  to  move  out  of 
the  course  the  obstacles  that  stood  in  the  way  of  the  idea 
being  realised.  To  us,  on  the  contrary,  the  obstacles  bulk 
so  largely  that  we  begin  with  them,  and  we  are  scarcely 
able  to  conceive  a  condition  of  the  mind  that  could  give 


PROBLEMS  OF  PROVIDENCE         453 

death  a  secondary  place,  or  sweep  it  away  in  the  rush  of 
great  principles  regarding  God  and  the  universe,  or  sink  it 
in  the  intense  ecstasy  of  conscious  life  with  God. 

7.  ProUems  of  BigMeousness  and  their  Solution. 

In  many  passages  of  the  Old  Testament  the  idea  of 
immortality  is  connected  with  the  problems  of  the  AVisdom. 
The  hope,  the  necessity,  of  immortality  appears  as  the 
solution  of  problems  which,  it  was  felt,  received  no  just 
solution  in  this  life.  As  the  Wisdom  aimed  at  detecting 
and  exhibiting  the  operation  of  fixed  principles  in  the 
world  and  life,  it  became  practically  a  doctrine  of  pro- 
vidence in  a  wide  sense.  And  in  a  world  where  moral 
anomalies  were  so  abundant,  a  doctrine  of  providence  took 
oftentimes  the  shape  of  a  theodicy  or  justification  of  the 
ways  of  God  to  man  ;  and  as  this  justification  was  seen  to  be 
imperfectly  comprehended  in  this  life,  the  necessity  was 
felt  of  projecting  the  final  issue  into  a  region  beyond 
death. 

In  no  nation  were  the  principles  and  conditions  of 
well-being  and  misfortune  so  clearly  distinguished  as  among 
the  Hebrews.  The  lawgiver  set  out  by  laying  before  the 
people  blessing  and  cursing.  Though  the  kingdom  of  God 
was  administered  as  to  its  principles  in  no  way  different 
from  God's  government  of  other  nations,  there  was  this 
great  difference,  that  there  was  always  present  the  inspired 
consciousness  of  the  prophets  and  teachers  of  the  people, 
in  which  was  immediately  reflected  the  meaning  of  God's 
providence  with  them.  And  it  is  possible  that,  though  the 
principles  of  God's  government  of  Israel  were  the  same  as 
those  by  which  He  governs  other  nations,  there  was  a  more 
immediate  connection  in  their  case  between  sin  and  mis- 
fortune, than  there  is  among  other  peoples.  There  is  in  all 
t'ases  the  same  connection  ;  but  it  may  be  made  a  question 
whether,  in  addition  to  having  the  connection  clearly  set 
Ijcfore  tlie  ]»or)ple  by  the  prophets,  the  connection  was  not 
more  strict  and  immediate  in  God's  rule  of  His  people. 


454   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

In  addition  to  this  general  law,  the  individual  was 
also  taught  the  same  lesson.  When  he  sinned,  there  was 
immediately,  in  the  ceremonial  disability  that  ensued,  a 
punishment  of  his  offence.  Thus  that  fundamental  connec- 
tion between  sin  and  suffering  being  extremely  prominent, 
it  took  possession  of  men's  minds  with  a  very  firm  hold. 
And,  no  doubt,  this  was  intended.  The  law  was  a  ministra- 
tion of  death ;  its  purpose  was  to  educate  the  people  in  the 
knowledge  of  sin  and  retribution.  In  the  theology  of  Paul, 
the  law  stands  not  on  the  side  of  the  remedy,  but  on  the 
side  of  the  disease.  It  came  in  to  aggravate  the  malady — 
that  the  offence  miglit  abound.  It  had  other  uses,  and  this 
view  of  it  is  not  meant  to  be  exhaustive.  But  as  an  inter- 
mediate institution,  coming  in  between  the  promise  and 
actual  redemption,  this  was  one  of  its  effects  and  purposes. 
It  augmented  the  disease  in  the  consciousness  of  the  mind 
struggling  with  its  demands,  and  perhaps  also,  as  Paul 
argues,  it  increased  the  disease  in  fact  by  provoking  the 
sinful  mind  to  oppose  it.  It  revealed  both  sin  and  its 
consequences :  "  By  the  law  is  the  knowledge  of  sin " ; 
"when  the  commandment  came,  sin  revived,  and  I  died" 
(Eom.  iii.  20,  vii.  9).  The  covenant  of  Sinai  and  its  ad- 
ministration brought  out  very  conspicuously  the  principles 
of  all  moral  government. 

It  was  natural  in  this  way  for  a  member  of  the  Hebrew 
State  to  apply  the  principle, of  retribution  very  stringently 
and  universally.  All  evil  he  knew  to  be  for  sin,  any  evil 
he  concluded  to  be  for  some  sin.  Wliere  there  was  evil, 
there  must  have  been  sin  to  bring  it  fortli.  Evil  was  not 
an  accident,  nor  was  it  a  necessary  outcome  of  the  nature 
of  things ;  it  arose  from  the  sinful  conduct  of  men : 
"Affliction  cometh  not  forth  of  the  dust,  neither  doth 
trouble  spring  out  of  the  ground ;  but  man  is  born  unto 
trouble, — i.e.  hern  so  that  he  acts  in  such  a  manner  as  to 
bring  trouble  upon  liimself, — as  the  sparks  fly  upward " 
(Job  V.  6,  7). 

Tin's  stringent  application  of  the  law  was  more  natural 
iu  a  state  of  society  like  that  existing  in  the  East  than  it 


PROBLEM    OF    CALAMITY  455 

would  be  with  us.  There,  society  is  simple,  and  its  elements 
more  detached  from  one  another.  The  tril»es  live  apart, 
and  draw  their  subsistence  from  the  soil  in  the  most  direct 
way.  One  class  does  not  depend  upon  another  ;  indeed,  there 
are  no  classes,  no  such  complex  and  intricate  interweaving 
of  relations  as  in  modern  society.  Hence  the  incidence  of 
a  calamity  was  generally  direct ;  it  did  not  pass  through 
several  sections,  or  ramify  on  all  sides,  affecting  most 
severely  those  who  were  iimoceut  of  the  evil.  The  move- 
ments of  life  were  sinudtaneous,  and  a  calamity  wjis  seen 
to  fall  generally  where  it  was  deserved.  In  this  way,  not 
in  Israel  only,  but  throughout  the  East,  the  principle  of 
retributive  righteousness  was  held  very  firmly :  with  the 
man  who  doeth  well  it  is  well ;  with  the  sinner  it  is  ill. 
This  was  right  under  the  rule  of  a  just  God ;  for  this  rule 
was  particular,  and  embraced  every  occurrence. 

But  even  in  such  an  approach  towards  organised  society 
as  was  made  on  the  settlement  of  the  people  in  Canaan,  this 
simple  faith  must  have  received  rude  shocks.  In  the  happy 
times  of  the  early  monarchy,  indeed,  when  the  kingdom  of 
God  was  everywhere  prosperous,  and  heathen  States  on 
all  sides  bowed  before  it,  and  when  justice  was  administered 
with  equal  hand,  and  society  still  preserved  its  ancient 
moral  authority,  the  principle  was  receiving  continual  veri- 
fication. But  in  later  times,  when  great  heathen  monarchies 
rose  in  the  East  and  trampled  the  kingdom  of  God  under 
their  heel,  the  principle  could  not  but  come  into  danger  of 
question.  At  first,  indeed,  the  principle  itself  afforded  an 
explanation  of  these  calamities — they  were  the  first  judg- 
ment of  God  upon  the  sin  of  the  people.  And,  so  far  as 
the  nation  was  concerned,  the  explanation  might  satisfy  the 
pious  mind. 

But  the  case  of  individuals  was  different.  In  the 
fate  that  overtook  the  different  classes  of  the  people  the 
failure  of  the  principle  was  most  signally  manifested. 
It  was  the  most  godly  of  the  nation  that  suffered  the 
severest  calamities.  The  disloyal,  ethnicising  party,  agree- 
ing with  their  conquerors,  or  at  least  submitting  to  their 


456       THE  THEOLOGY    OF   THE   OLD   TPISTAMENT 

idolatries,  escaped  suffering ;  while  the  true  theocratic- 
hearted  men,  whether  those  left  at  home  or  those  carried 
into  exile,  were  the  victims  of  extreme  hardships  and  in- 
dignity, hoth  at  the  hands  of  their  enemies  and  from  their 
false  brethren.  And  even  in  regard  to  the  nation,  though 
the  sense  of  the  national  sinfulness  might  compose  the 
mind  and  humble  it  more  deeply  before  God,  there  could 
not  but  rise  occasionally  in  the  heart  thoughts  of  a  dis- 
tui'bing  kind.  Though  the  people  had  deeply  sinned,  and 
though  their  sin  was  aggravated  by  the  fact  that  they 
had  sinned  against  the  knowledge  of  the  truth,  yet  by  com- 
parison the  people  of  God,  though  sinful,  stood  above  those 
idolatrous  powers  into  whose  hand  their  God  had  delivered 
them.  Already  this  thought  appears  in  the  prophet 
Habakkuk,  when  he  compares  Israel  and  the  Chaldeans, 
which  latter  acknowledge  no  right  but  force,  and  no  God 
but  their  own  right  hand.  And,  further,  as  time  wore 
on  under  the  sorrows  of  the  Exile,  and  a  new  generation 
arose  who  had  not  been  guilty  of  the  sins  that  caused  the 
national  dispersion,  and  yet  continued  to  suffer  the  penalty 
of  them,  there  arose  not  only  a  sense  of  paralysis  and  help- 
lessness, as  if  they  lay  under  a  cruel  ban  which  no  conduct 
of  their  own  could  break,  but  also  questionings  as  to  the 
rectitude  of  God. 

Now,  these  questionings  were  met  in  three  ways.  First, 
in  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  himself  an  exile,  the  old  concep- 
tion of  the  national  unity  is  subjected  to  analysis.  The 
unity  is  resolved  and  decomposed  into  individuals,  and 
the  relation  of  the  individual  to  Jehovah  is  declared  to  be 
direct  and  immediate ;  the  son  does  not  suffer  for  the  sins 
of  the  father,  nor  the  individual  for  the  sins  of  the  nation, 
— the  soul  that  sinneth  shall  die.  This  was  an  emancipa- 
tion of  the  individual  from  the  ban  of  national  sin,  and  a 
profound  advance  towards  a  spiritual  religion.  Of  course, 
the  prophet's  conception  is  true  only  in  the  region  of 
spiritual  relation  to  God  ;  externally,  the  individual  may  be 
involved  in  national  calamity,  but  his  own  conduct  is  that 
which  determines  God's  spiritual  relation  to  him.     It  may 


SORROWS   OF   THE   GODLY  457 

not  be  quite  certain  that  the  teaching  of  the  prophet  is 
presented  witli  all  the  limitations  necessary  to  it.  But 
great  truths  are  everywhere  presented  broadly,  and  the 
limitations  come  in  their  own  time. 

A  second  line  was  that  of  hope  in  the  future,  as  we 
observe  it  in  the  second  half  of  Isaiah.  The  very 
calamities  of  the  Exile  and  the  apparent  dissolution 
of  the  nation  led  to  a  profounder  meditation  upon  what 
the  people  of  God  was, — what  designs  Jehovah  had  in 
calling  it  to  be  His  servant, — and  a  deeper  conception 
of  what  Jehovah  Himself  was,  and  of  the  scope  of  His 
purposes.  Thus  it  became  plain  what  it  was  to  know  the 
true  God,  and  what  must  yet,  in  spite  of  all  appearances, 
be  the  issue  of  the  fact  that  there  was  a  true  God,  and 
that  the  true  knowledge  of  Him  had  been  given  to  Israel, 
His  servant.  When  we  look  at  the  circumstances  of  the 
time,  at  that  which  was  powerful  in  the  world,  and  at  the 
state  of  Israel  scattered  in  every  land,  the  faith  of  this 
prophet  in  the  destiny  of  his  people  becomes  one  of  the 
most  surprising  things  in  the  Old  Testament.  But  this 
was  only  part  of  the  conception.  A  judgment  was  formed 
of  the  meaning  of  the  chastisement  of  the  people,  and  hope 
found  satisfaction  in  the  idea  that  these  chastisements 
exhausted  the  nation's  sin  and  atoned  for  it.  The  precise 
form  of  the  prophet's  conception,  as  we  saw,  is  matter  of 
difficulty ;  but  his  general  idea,  that  the  sorrows  and  evils 
of  the  Exile,  falling  on  some  element  in  the  people,  removed 
their  guilt,  is  plain. 

But  a  third  line  is  also  followed.  In  the  second  half 
of  Isaiah  the  sorrows  of  the  people  are  due  to  their  sins. 
Their  sorrows  are  the  expiation  of  their  sins,  and  the 
national  unity  is  still  firmly  retained.  But  in  another  book 
the  distinction  is  drawn  between  the  godly  and  the  sinful 
among  the  people,  and  the  question  is  raised.  What  is  God's 
purpose  in  the  chastisements  which  He  inflicts  upon  the 
godly  ?  This  question  is  put  and  answered  in  the  Book  of 
Job.  Though  Job  be  an  individual,  it  is  scarcely  possible 
to  avoid  regarding  him  as  a  type  of  the  godly  portion  of 


458   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

the  nation;  the  character  as  drawn  in  the  book  is  broader 
and  larger  than  that  of  an  individual.  The  answer  given 
to  the  question  is,  that  the  afflictions  of  the  righteous  are  a 
trial  of  their  righteousness,  and  when  borne  with  steadfast- 
ness they  issue  in  a  higher  religious  condition  and  a  closer 
fellowship  with  God,  through  a  more  perfect  knowledge  of 
Him.  "  I  had  heard  of  Thee  with  the  hearing  of  the  ear : 
l)ut  now  mine  eye  seeth  Thee  "  (xlii.  5). 

These  were  thoughts  which  consideration  of  the  sin  of 
the  nation  and  its  sufferings  suggested.  Of  equal,  if  not 
greater,  interest  were  thoughts  suggested  to  the  mind  by 
the  sufferings  and  history  of  the  individual.  The  general 
principle,  that  it  was  well  with  the  righteous  and  ill  with 
the  sinner,  was  seen  to  be  broken  in  upon  on  two  sides. 
The  wicked  were  many  times  observed  to  be  prosperous, 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  righteous  were  plagued  every 
day.  Now,  relief  was  sought  from  this  anomaly  of  God's 
providence  in  various  ways.  First,  the  pious  mind  sought 
to  comfort  itself  and  other  minds  in  similar  distress,  with 
the  consideration  that  the  triumphing  of  the  wicked  was 
brief ;  it  was  but  a  momentary  interruption  to  the  general 
flow  of  God's  providence,  which  would  speedily  be  removed. 
This  is  the  consideration  in  some  of  the  Psalms.  Or,  at  any 
rate,  whether  brief  or  prolonged,  it  would  come  to  an  end. 
The  true  relation  of  the  wicked  to  God  would  be  manifested 
sometime  in  tliis  w^orld ;  they  would  be  destroyed,  with 
terrible  tokens  of  His  displeasure.  This  is  taught  in  other 
Psalms.  In  the  Book  of  Job  this  solution  no  longer  satisfies, 
it  is  a  solution  not  found  universally  valid.  The  wicked 
not  only  pass  their  life  in  prosperity,  but  go  down  to  the 
grave  in  peace :  "  They  spend  tlieir  days  in  wealth,  and  in 
a  moment  {i.e.  in  peace)  go  down  to  the  grave.  He  is 
borne  away  to  the  grave,  and  men  keep  watch  over  his 
tomb.  The  clods  of  the  valley  are  sweet  unto  him,  and  all 
men  draw  after  him,  as  there  were  innumerable  before 
him"  (chap.  xxi.  32).  When  this  point  is  reached  there 
is  evidently  only  the  alternative,  to  leave  the  question 
unsolved,  or  to  project  the  solution  beyond  death.     Secondly, 


IDEAS    OF   THE   PSALMISTS  459 

another  consideration  which  afforded  comfort  to  the 
righteous  mind  was  a  deeper  analysis  whicli  he  was  able 
to  make  of  that  which  was  to  be  called  true  life  and  true 
prosperity  and  blessedness.  In  all  the  passages  where  the 
question  is  raised  of  the  outward  prosperity  of  the  wicked, 
the  righteous  comforts  himself  with  the  thought  that  he  has 
the  blessedness  of  God's  favour, — except  in  the  Book  of  Job. 
Even  in  the  xxxviith  Psalm  the  pious  mind  exhorts  others : 
"  Delight  thyself  in  God,  and  He  will  give  tliee  the  desire 
of  thy  heart."  Yet  in  this  Psalm  tliis  delight  in  God  is  not 
regarded  as  sufficient  or  altogether  satisfying  to  the  mind ; 
there  is  the  demand  also  that  the  anomaly  of  the  prosperity 
of  the  wicked  should  be  removed,  and  tliat  the  righteous 
should  be  externally  prosperous.  In  Ps.  Ixxiii.  the  pious 
mind  dwells  more  upon  its  own  blessedness  in  possessing 
the  favour  of  God :  "  Nevertheless,  I  am  continually  with 
thee  " ;  but  the  problem  of  providence  is  still  found  a  trouble, 
which  occasions  great  disquietude  to  the  mind.  And  a 
solution  of  it  is  anxiously  sought.  In  two  remarkable 
Psalms,  however,  the  xlixth  and  xviith,  the  problem  seems 
to  have  been  entirely  overcome.  In  the  first  of  these  two 
passages  the  author  comes  forward  with  a  philosophy  of 
the  question,  and  in  the  other  he  calmly  surveys  the 
prosperity  of  the  wicked  almost  as  if  it  were  a  thing  of 
course.  This  life  belongs  to  the  wicked,  but  there  is 
another  which  belongs  to  the  righteous.  In  both  these 
passages  the  solution  seems  thrown  into  the  region  beyond 
death.  And  this  is  also  the  solution  in  the  xixth  chapter 
of  Job,  although  the  conclusion  is  there  reached  in  a  some- 
what different  way.  One  is  almost  compelled  to  tliink 
that  both  Ps.  xlix.  and  Ps.  xvii.  are  later  than  the  Book  of 
Job. 

8.   Ideas  of  an  Aftcr-TAfe  in  Psalms  xvii.,  xxxvii., 

JUL  LJb%y    LJUtlULvv^ 

A  brief  reference  may  be  made  to  each  of  these  typical 
passages.  The  simplest  resolution  of  the  problem  is  that 
seen  in  Ps.  xxxvii.     There  the  condition  of  the  perplexed 


460        THE   THEOLOGY    OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

mind  is  not  very  aggravated,  and  the  relief  administered  is 
simple.  The  ditliciilty  of  the  prosperous  wicked  and  the 
afflicted  righteous  man  was  felt,  hut  the  difficulty  was 
simply  a  practical  one.  The  fact  that  many  wicked  were 
rich  and  prosperous,  and  that  righteous  men  were  in 
distress,  led  to  envy  and  irritation  on  the  part  of  the  just. 
And  relief  is  administered  in  the  form  of  an  advice  often 
repeated,  with  a  reference  to  the  great  principle  of  moral 
government :  "  Fret  not  thyself  because  of  evil-doers  .  .  . 
cease  from  anger,  and  be  not  wrathful  .  .  .  fret  not  thyself 
in  any  wise  to  do  evil."  And  the  consideration  urged  is 
that  the  prosperity  of  the  wicked  is  h'ief\  it  is  an  inter- 
ruption to  the  general  scope  of  things,  but  it  is  speedily 
overcome  by  them,  and  the  current  flows  on  in  its 
accustomed  channels :  "  Fret  not  thyself  because  of  evil- 
doers :  for  they  shall  soon  be  cut  down  like  the  grass  .  .  . 
the  wicked  plotteth  against  the  just ;  but  the  Lord  laugheth 
at  him,  because  He  seeth  that  his  day  is  coming,"  And,  on 
the  other  hand :  "  Trust  in  the  Lord  and  do  good,  and  thou 
shalt  inherit  the  earth."  The  Psalmist  satisfies  himself 
and  others  by  affirming  the  general  principle,  and  by 
saying  that  the  exception  to  it  is  of  short  duration. 

This  is  a  practical  solution,  sufficient  when  the  evil  has 
gone  no  further  than  to  occasion  discontent.  The  difficulty 
that  there  is  exception  at  all,  does  not  bulk  largely  in 
presence  of  the  acknowledged  brevity  of  its  duration.  The 
other  side  of  the  question,  the  felicity  of  the  righteous  in  God, 
is  touched  upon,  though  but  slightly ;  it  is  touched  upon  in 
the  course  of  an  exhortation  to  keep  the  faith  even  amidst 
present  confusions,  because  out  of  these  the  true  moral 
order  will  speedily  arise :  "  Delight  thyself  in  God,  and  He 
shall  give  thee  the  desires  of  thine  heart."  This  is  one 
way  of  reading  the  Psalm.  It  may  be  questioned,  however, 
whether  it  is  sufficient.  It  makes  the  Psalmist's  doctrine 
somewhat  abstract,  and  hardly  does  justice  to  the  manifest 
eschatological  references  in  it,  as  that  the  meek  shall  inherit 
the  earth.  The  '  meek '  is  technical  language  for  the  godly  ; 
and  inherit  the  eartL  refers  to  the  final  condition,  when  the 


SEVENTY-THIRD    PSALM  461 

kingdom  of  God  has  coiiio.  The  Psalm,  tlierofore,  api)oars 
to  be  a  real  eschatological  national  Psalm  ;  cumforting  the 
righteous  with  the  hope  of  the  nearness  of  the  day  of  the 
Lord,  and  the  triumph  of  the  right. 

In  Ps.  Ixxiii.  an  advance  is  made  both  in  the  problem 
and  in  the  solution.  The  problem  is  felt  to  be  more  serious. 
The  Psalmist's  mind  is  in  a  more  disquieted  condition.  The 
question  is  no  more  a  mere  practical  one,  but  has  become  a 
real  religious  and  speculative  difficulty,  what  tl^e  writer 
calls  an  amal,  so  great  that  his  faith  in  God  was  in  danger 
of  being  overthrown :  "  As  for  me,  my  feet  were  almost 
gone.  Behold,  these  are  the  ungodly,  who  prosper  in  the 
world.  .  .  .  Verily  I  have  cleansed  my  heart  in  vain." 
Only  after  much  anxiety  had  the  Psalmist  been  enabled  to 
return  again  to  peace.  In  the  sanctuary  of  God  a  light 
was  shed  upon  the  fate  of  the  wicked  which  enabled  him 
to  walk  without  stumbling.  And  just  as  the  problem  is 
more  seriously  grasped  than  in  Ps.  xxxvii.,  so  the  solution 
is  also  profounder.  This  solution  consists  in  a  contrast 
between  the  condition  of  the  wicked  and  that  of  the 
righteous,  with  the  necessary  consequences  of  this  con- 
dition. The  whole  is  thrown  into  the  form  of  an  analysis 
of  their  respective  relations  to  Jehovah.  The  prosperity  of 
the  wicked  is  a  thing  merely  apparent ;  it  has  no  sub- 
stantiality, because  of  the  necessary  attitude  of  Jehovah  to 
sin.  The  prosperity  of  the  wicked  is  as  "  a  dream  when 
one  awaketh  "  ;  so,  when  "  Jehovah  awaketh,  He  will  despise 
their  image."  The  relation  of  God  to  them  must  display 
itself ;  and  when  it  displays  itself  they  will  perish  amidst 
terrible  manifestations  of  His  anger.  The  righteous,  on  the 
other  hand,  is  ever  with  God  :  "  I  am  continually  with  Thee  : 
Thou  wilt  (or,  dost)  direct  me  with  thy  counsel.  ...  It  is 
good  for  me  to  draw  near  unto  God  ...  all  they  that  go 
far  from  Thee  shall  perish."  The  essential  thing  is  the 
relation  of  men  to  God.  This  contains  in  it  the  fate  of 
men.     And  this  fate  will  yet  reveal  itself. 

The  Psalmist  considers    that  this  fate,  so  far  as  the 
wicked   is   concermed,    will  reveal   itself   in  their  visible 


462   THE  THEOLOGY  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

destruction.  It  is,  indeed,  possible  that  both  in  this  Psalm 
and  in  Ps.  xxxvii.  the  prophetic  conception  of  the  day  of 
the  Lord  may  be  present  to  the  Psalmist's  mind,  and  the 
destruction  of  the  wicked  be  that  which  will  overtake  them 
on  that  day.  This  is  one  of  the  main  points,  indeed,  to 
which,  in  studying  these  Psalms  (xvii.,  xxxvii.,  xlix.,  and 
Ixxiii.),  attention  h-as  to  be  directed.  Is  the  Psalmist 
contemplating  his  own  death  ?  or  is  he  contemplating  that 
change  wliicli  will  supervene  at  the  coming  of  God,  on  the 
day  of  the  Lord  and  the  judgment,  when  the  sinners  of  the 
people  perish,  but  the  godly  pass  into  the  peace  of  God  ? 
However  this  be,  the  Psalmist  sees  in  the  relation  of 
men  to  God  the  certain  issue  of  their  history.  The 
question  is  of  interest,  however,  whether  he  does  not 
pursue  the  destiny  of  the  righteous  beyond  death.  It  is 
possible  that  he  might  have  satisfied  himself  with  stating 
the  general  principle,  with  leading  back  the  destiny  of  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked  alike  to  that  which  is  really  essen- 
tial, their  relation  to  Jehovah  ;  and  assuring  himself  that  the 
destiny  of  all  will  be  determined  by  this.  And  some  scholars 
understand  the  words  "  thou  wilt  take  me  to  glory  "  in  this 
sense ;  meaning  that  God  would  take  the  saint  to  His  care 
and  protection.  But  (1)  the  passages  adduced  by  Ewald 
and  Eiehm  to  support  this  sense  are  hardly  in  point.  And 
(2)  the  same  phrase  occurs  in  Ps.  xlix.,  where  it  can  hardlj 
refer  to  protection  and  providential  care  in  this  life.  It  is 
therefore  more  natural,  I  think,  to  regard  the  phrase  as 
liaving  a  reference  to  that  which  is  beyond  death ;  at 
any  rate,  it  must  have  a  reference  to  the  eternal  relation  of 
the  saint  to  God.  And  the  words,  "my  flesh  and  heart 
faint  and  fail,"  not  unnaturally  refer  to  death.  The  hope 
of  the  believing  mind  lies  in  its  relation  to  Jehovah : 
"  Whom  have  I  in  heaven  but  thee  ?  and  on  earth  I  desire 
nought  beside  Thee."  And  his  assurance  that  it  shall  be 
ill  with  the  wicked,  is  based  equally  upon  their  relation 
to  God. 

Ps.  xlix.  is  even  more  remarkable.     Its  reference  to  the 
condition  after  death,  in  regard  both  to  the  wicked  and  to 


FORTY-NINTH    PSALM  463 

the  righteous,  can  scarcely  be  niistaken.  First,  the  Psalmist 
begins  with  a  promise  to  all  men,  high  and  low,  rich  and 
poor,  that  he  will  clear  up  a  mystery.  Whatever  his  theme 
and  tlie  lesson  he  is  going  to  teach  may  be,  it  is  no  more  a 
truth  which  he  is  wringing  out  of  circumstances ;  it  is  no 
more  a  thing  reached  only  by  a  struggle,  and  attained  only 
as  a  necessity  of  faith.  It  is  an  objective  doctrine,  an 
assured  principle.  Again,  tliough  he  speaks  in  the  first  person, 
what  he  says  applies  to  all  men.  His  proposition  is,  '  Why 
should  I  fear  in  the  evil  day  ?  *  He  has  no  reason  to  fear ; 
and  this  feeling  of  security  arises  from  his  contemplation 
of  mankind.  He  sees  that  all  men  die  ;  this  is  the  universal 
fate :  wise'  men  die,  the  brutish  and  foolish  perish  together. 
So  far  as  this  is  concerned,  the  lot  of  men  is  the  same,  and 
common  to  all.  Thirdly,  the  question  to  which  he  presents 
a  solution  is  that  of  the  prosperity  and  riches  of  the 
wicked  ;  and  also,  on  the  other  hand,  the  misery  of  the  good, 
the  calamities  of  the  evil  day.  The  riches  of  the  wicked 
cannot  deliver  them  from  death.  None  can  redeem  his 
brother,  or  give  unto  God  a  ransom  for  him  so  that  he 
should  live  and  not  see  the  pit.  He  sliall  see  it ;  for  all  men 
die.  And  none  can  carry  his  riches  to  the  grave  with  him. 
Thus  the  riches  and  prosperity  of  the  wicked  do  not  avail 
the  wricked ;  he  as  well  as  poorer  men  comes  to  the  grave 
at  last.  Still,  if  this  were  all  tliat  could  be  said,  there 
would  be  an  advantage  in  riches — in  this  life,  at  least.  If 
all  die,  and  if  this  were  the  end,  the  wicked,  if  rich,  would 
be  better  than  the  righteous,  if  poor. 

But  it  is  just  at  the  point  when  death  intervenes  that 
the  difference  appears.  Man,  being  in  lionour,  without 
understanding  is  like  the  beasts  that  perish.  Like  sheep, 
the  ungodly  are  laid  in  Sheol,  and  Death  shepherds  them  • 
their  end  is  to  be  for  the  consumption  of  Sheol.  It  is 
]»robable  tliat  tliere  may  be  a  transference  to  Sheol  of  that 
which  takes  place  in  the  grave.  There  is  no  likelihood  tliat 
the  passage  teaches  tliat  the  deceased  poisons  in  Slieol  are 
consumed,  so  as  to  cease  alisolutely  to  sul)sist.  But  the 
point,  on  the  one  hand,  is  that  at  death  the  wicked,  however 


464   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

prosperous  in  life,  really  become  the  prey  of  death — they 
may  be  compared  to  the  lower  creatures  ;  while,  on  the  other 
liand,  the  righteous  live :  "  God  shall  redeem  me  from  the 
hand  of  Sheol :  for  He  will  take  me."  Sheol,  the  place  of 
the  dead,  is  escaped ;  the  hand  of  God  takes  the  righteous 
soul  across  its  gulf  to  Himself. 

Now,  these  points  in  this  passage  are  remarkable :  first, 
what  the  author  teaches  is  put  forward  as  an  objective 
principle,  no  more  a  mere  demand  of  faith,  but  a  dogma  of 
religious  belief ;  second,  it  is  a  doctrine  which  assumes  and 
is  based  upon  the  acknowledged  fact  that  death  is  uni- 
versal, wise  and  foolish  alike  falling  a  prey  to  it ;  third,  the 
doctrine  itself  touches  the  point  of  the  prosperity  of  the 
wicked  in  this  life,  and  the  evils  that  befall  the  righteous ; 
and,  fourth,  the  solution  is  thrown  entirely  into  the  region 
beyond  death.  The  destiny  of  men  is  looked  at  as  a 
whole,  both  in  this  life  and  as  extending  beyond  death. 
And  this  destiny  depends  on  their  relation  to  God.  The 
wicked's  prosperity  in  this  life  cannot  save  him  from 
death ;  and  death  to  him  remains  death.  The  evil  are 
gathered  like  a  flock  into  Sheol ;  death  is  their  shepherd. 
The  Old  Testament  teaches  no  aggravations  in  death.  Death 
is  itself  the  highest  aggravation, — i.e.  death  and  continuance 
in  the  state  of  death,  according  to  the  popular  notions  of 
what  this  was, — Death  shepherds  them.  But  God  redeems 
the  righteous  from  the  hand  of  Sheol ;  for  He  takes  him. 

The  phrase  '  he  will  take  me '  looks  like  a  reminiscence 
of  the  language  used  of  Enoch, — "  He  was  not ;  for  God  took 
him"  (Gen.  v.  24).  The  date  and  the  authorship  of  the 
xlixth  Psalm  is  doul)tful.  It  might  be  supposed  that  this 
remarkable  conception  would  scarcely  be  early.  The  passage 
belongs  to  the  writings  of  the  Wisdom,  as  the  introduction 
shows.  And  it  is  quite  conceivable  that  in  certain  circles 
of  the  people  a  more  advanced  faith  might  have  prevailed 
than  was  to  be  found  among  the  bulk  of  the  nation.  At 
all  events,  the  plain  sense  of  a  passage  ought  not  to  be 
made  dependent  on  questions  of  date  or  autliorship. 

It  is  possible  that  Vs.  xvii.  may  have  the  same  mean- 


SEVENTEENTH   PSALM  465 

ing.  It  draws  the  same  kind  of  distinction  between  two 
classes  of  men :  those  whom  it  calls  men  of  the  world, 
whose  portion  is  in  this  life,  whom  God  loads  with  earthly 
joys  and  blessings ;  and  another  class,  whose  portion  God  is 
Himself.  This  character  of  the  two  classes  furnishes  the 
key  to  their  destiny.  The  Psalmist,  though  he  appears  to 
regard  the  prosperity  of  the  wicked  in  life  as  a  thing 
natural  and  of  course,  their  portion  being  in  this  life, 
anticipates  their  destruction  eventually  at  the  hand  of 
God.  But  for  himself,  he  will  "  see  God's  face  in  righteous- 
ness." The  language  in  which  the  Psalmist  expresses  his 
hope  is  remarkable,  though  of  somewhat  uncertain  mean- 
ing :  "  I  shall  behold  Thy  face  in  righteousness :  when  I 
awake,  I  shall  be  satisfied  with  Thine  image."  The  phrase 
*  in  righteousness '  might  mean  *  through  righteousness,' 
more  probably  *  in  the  element  of  righteousness.'  The  ex- 
pression *  thine  image,'  ^JJ?^^,  is  remarkable.  The  word  is 
used  to  express  what  we  call  the  species  or  genus  of  a  thing  : 
"  Thou  shalt  not  make  unto  thee  any  generic  likeness  of  any- 
thing in  the  heavens  "  (Ex.  xx.  4).  When  such  a  thing  is 
seen,  the  beholder  must  be  face  to  face  with  it — in  its 
very  presence,  and  looking  on  it.  The  language  is  thus  in 
favour  of  an  immediate  vision  of  God ;  as  in  Deuteronony 
it  is  denied  that  any  'n  of  God  was  seen  in  His  manifesta- 
tions of  Himself  on  earth  (Ex.  iv.  12).  In  the  xixth  chapter 
of  Job,  too,  the  assurance  of  Job,  that  he  slmll  see  God,  is 
one  having  reference  to  a  state  after  death. 

If  this  sense  be  adopted,  then  the  expression  '  when  I 
awake '  would  have  a  quite  natural  sense,  thougli  a  very 
large  one.  It  is  very  improbable  that  the  word  sliould 
mean  merely  *  when  I  awake  out  of  sleep  in  the  morning,' 
or  *  every  morning ' ;  as  if  the  meaning  were  that  each 
morning,  as  soon  as  consciousness  returned,  his  joy  in 
God  would  return ;  and  he  would  realise  God's  image, 
and  be  satisfied  witli  it.  Neither  is  the  sense  very 
natural,  '  when  I  awake  out  of  this  night  of  darkness 
and  calamity  now  lying  on  me,  in  the  morning  of  prosperity ' 
(Eiehm).  On  the  other  hand,  if  the  word  refer  to  the  history 
30 


466   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

of  man  after  death,  the  passage  seems  to  go  further  than  even 
Ps.  xHx.,  and  to  refer  to  the  awakening  out  of  death,  when 
God  has  brought  in  His  perfect  kingdom,  which  departed 
saints  would  live  again  to  share.  This  doctrine  is  certainly 
found  in  Daniel ;  and  from  the  date  of  that  book  onward  it 
is  the  faith,  at  least,  of  the  Pharisees.  It  is  quite  probable 
that  it  may  have  been  cherished  in  Israel  long  before  the 
age  of  Daniel,  if  that  book  be  of  the  late  date  to  which  it 
is  now  usually  assigned.  It  is  certainly  also  found  in  Isa. 
xxvi.  19 — a  passage  the  age  of  which  is  very  obscure — 
"  Thy  dead  shall  live,  my  dead  ones  shall  arise.  Awake 
and  cry  for  joy,  ye  dwellers  in  the  dust :  for  a  dew  of 
light  is  thy  dew,  and  the  earth  shall  bring  forth  the  dead." 
The  heading  of  the  present  Psalm  ascribes  it  to  David. 
Such  headings  are  not  very  good  evidence ;  though,  being 
in  the  first  book,  this  Psalm  is  probably  not  a  very  late 
one.  But  again  our  duty  is  to  accept  the  natural  sense  of 
words,  leaving  questions  of  date  and  authorship  to  take 
care  of  themselves. 


9.   The  Idea  of  an  After -Life  in  Job, 

In  endeavouring  to  ascertain  what  hopes  of  immor- 
tality were  entertained  by  Old  Testament  saints,  how 
these  hopes  arose,  and  on  wliat  they  were  grounded, 
special  attention  must  be  given  to  the  Book  of  Job.  Some- 
thing might  be  said  even  for  the  propriety  of  beginning 
with  it.  For  the  opinion  tliat  once  prevailed,  that  the 
book  was  of  Arabic  origin,  or,  at  least,  not  of  native 
Israelitish  extraction,  is  now  altogether  obsolete.  The 
work  has  every  mark  of  a  genuine  Jewish  authorship.  And 
though  the  belief  that  once  also  held  the  field  regarding  the 
extreme  antiquity  of  the  book  cannot  now  be  maintained  in 
face  of  modern  criticism,  yet  even  if  we  admit  the  actual 
authorship  to  be  pretty  late,  the  scene  and  the  circumstances 
are  those  of  very  early  times.  Job  himself  is  represented  as 
living  in  the  patriarchal  age ;  and  it  is  the  author's  aim  to 
exhibit  events  and  opinions  as  they  existed  then.     It  is,  no 


THE    BOOK    OF   JOB  467 

doubt,  quite  possible  tbat  the  beliefs  and  the  condition  of 
society  in  his  own  days  may  sometimes  form  the  back- 
ground of  his  picture,  or  even  give  some  of  its  colour  to 
the  light  which  he  throws  over  it.  But  probably  such  a 
thing,  if  it  be  the  case,  will  very  little  interfere  with  the 
truth  of  tlie  representation  of  the  ideas ;  for  we  find  sub- 
stantially the  same  views  expressed  on  this  subject  in  such 
Psalms  as  the  xvith  and  xviith,  and  in  the  very  late  prophet 
Malachi.  It  is  difficult  to  know  how  far  to  distinguish 
between  the  author  of  Job  and  his  hero.  For,  on  the  one 
hand,  as  we  must  take  very  much  of  the  speeches  and 
opinions  put  into  the  mouths  of  Job  and  his  friends  to  be 
due  altogether  to  the  author,  and  certainly  to  be  sym- 
pathised with  by  him,  while  yet,  on  the  other,  he  shows 
very  great  power  in  giving  objectivity  to  his  personages  and 
maintaining  very  distinctly  their  individualities,  it  will 
always  remain  somewhat  doubtful  how  far  he  shared  in  the 
views  which  he  makes  his  characters  express. 

In  order  to  realise  fully  the  meaning  of  the  passages 
bearing  on  this  subject  in  Job,  it  will  be  of  use  to  refer 
to  the  general  contents  and  the  prol)lem  of  the  book. 

(1)  As  it  now  lies  before  us,  the  book  consists  of  five 
parts.  First,  the  prologue,  in  prose,  chaps,  i.— ii.  This  de- 
scribes in  rapid  and  dramatic  steps  the  history  of  Job,  his 
piety  and  the  prosperity  and  greatness  corresponding  to  it ; 
then  how  h:3  hfe  is  drawn  in  under  the  operation  of  the 
trying,  sifting  providence  of  God,  through  the  suspicions 
suggested  by  the  Satan,  the  minister  of  God's  providence  in 
this  aspect  of  it,  that  his  godliness  is  but  selfish  ("  Does  Job 
serve  God  for  nought  ?  "),  and  only  the  natural  return  for  the 
unexampled  prosperity  bestowed  on  him.  If  stripped  of 
his  prosperity,  he  wiU  renounce  God  to  His  face.  These 
suspicions  bring  down  two  severe  calamities  on  Job, 
one  depriving  him  of  all  external  blessings,  cJiildren  and 
possessions  alike ;  and  the  other  throwing  the  man  him- 
self under  a  loathsome  and  painful  malady.  In  spite  of 
these  afflictions,  Job  retains  his  integrity,  and  imputes  no 
wrong  to  God.      Then  the  advent  of  Job's  three  friends 


468   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

is  described,  Eliphaz  the  Temanite,  Bildad  the  SJiuhite, 
and  Zophar  the  Naamathite,  who,  having  heard  of  Job's 
calamities,  came  to  condole  with  him. 

Second,  the  body  of  the  book,  in  poetry,  chaps.  iii.-xxxi., 
containing  a  series  of  speeches  in  which  the  problems  of 
Job's  afflictions  and  the  relation  of  external  evil  to  the 
righteousness  of  God  and  the  conduct  of  men  are  brilliantly 
discussed.  This  part  is  divided  into  three  cycles,  each  con- 
taining six  speeches,  one  by  Job  and  one  by  each  of  the 
friends  (chaps,  iii.-xiv.,  chaps,  xv.-xxi.,  and  chaps,  xxii.- 
xxxi.),  although  in  the  last  cycle  the  third  speaker,  Zophar, 
fails  to  answer.  Job,  having  driven  his  opponents  from  the 
field,  carries  his  reply  through  a  series  of  discourses,  in  which 
he  dwells  in  pathetic  words  upon  his  early  prosperity,  con- 
trasting with  it  his  present  misery  and  humihation.  He 
ends  with  a  solemn  repudiation  of  all  the  offences  that  had 
been  insinuated  or  might  be  suggested  against  him,  and 
with  a  challenge  to  the  Almighty  to  appear  and  put  His 
hand  to  the  charge  which  He  had  against  him,  and  for 
which  He  afflicted  him. 

Third,  a  youthful  bystander  named  Elihu,  the  repre- 
sentative of  a  younger  generation,  who  had  been  a  silent 
listener  to  the  debate,  now  intervenes,  and  expresses  his 
dissatisfaction  with  the  manner  in  which  both  Job  and  his 
friends  had  conducted  the  case,  and  offers  what  is  scarcely 
to  be  called  a  new  solution  of  the  question,  but  some  argu- 
ments which  the  friends  had  overlooked,  and  which  ought 
to  have  put  Job  to  silence  (chaps,  xxxii.— xxxvii.). 

Fourth,  in  answer  to  Job's  repeated  demands  that  God 
would  appear  and  solve  the  riddle  of  his  life,  the  Lord  answers 
Job  out  of  the  whirlwind.  The  Divine  Speaker  does  not  con- 
descend to  refer  to  Job's  individual  problem,  but  in  a  series 
of  ironical  interrogations  asks  him,  as  he  thinks  himself 
capable  of  fathoming  all  things,  to  expound  the  mysteries  of 
the  origin  and  sul)sistence  of  the  world,  the  phenomena  of 
the  atmosphere,  the  instincts  of  the  creatures  that  inhal)it 
the  desert ;  and,  as  he  judges  God's  conduct  of  the  world 
amiss,  he  is  invited  to  seize  the  reins  himself  and  gird  him 


THE  IDEA  OF  THE  BOOK  469 

with  the  Divine  tlumder  and  quell  the  rebellious  forces  of 
evil  ill  tlie  universe,  cliaps.  xxxviii.-xlii.  6.  Job  is  humbled 
and  abashed,  and  lays  his  liand  upon  his  mouth,  and 
repents  his  hasty  words  in  dust  and  ashes.  No  solution 
of  his  problem  is  vouchsafed;  but  God  Himself  effects  tliat 
which  neither  the  man's  own  thoughts  of  God  nor  the 
representations  of  his  friends  could  accomplish ;  the  Divine 
Speaker  but  repeats  in  another  form  what  the  friends  had 
said  and  wliat  Job  had  said  in  a  sublimer  way,  but  now 
it  is  God  who  speaks.  Job  had  heard  of  Him  with  the 
hearing  of  the  ear  without  effect ;  now  his  eye  sees  Him, 
and  he  al)hors  himself,  and  repents  in  dust  and  ashes. 
This  is  the  profoundest  religious  depth  reached  in  the  book. 

Then,  fifth,  comes  the  epilogue,  also  in  prose,  chap.  xlii. 
7—17,  which  describes  Job's  restoration  to  a  i)rosperity 
double  that  of  his  former  estate,  his  family  felicity,  and 
long  life. 

(2)  If,  now,  we  pass  from  this  outline  of  the  contents 
of  the  book  to  inquire  what  is  the  idea  of  the  book  or 
the  design  of  it,  we  must  not  expect  to  find  this  in 
any  particular  part  of  the  poem,  but  partly  in  tlie  senti- 
ments uttered  especially  by  Job,  partly  in  the  history 
of  mind  through  which  he  is  made  to  pass,  and  partly  in 
the  author's  own  contributions,  the  prologue  and  epilogue. 
Job  is  unquestionably  the  hero  of  the  work ;  and  in  the 
ideas  which  he  expresses,  and  the  history  through  which 
he  passes,  taken  together,  we  may  assume  tliat  we  find  the 
author  speaking  and  teaching.  The  discussion  of  the  ques- 
tion of  the  meaning  of  suffering,  between  Job  and  his  friends, 
occupies  by  far  the  largest  part  of  the  book ;  and  in  the 
direction  which  the  author  causes  this  discussion  to  take, 
we  may  see  revealed  the  main  didactic  purpose  of  the 
book.  Wlien  the  three  friends,  the  representatives  of 
former  theories  of  providence  and  of  previous  views  in 
regard  to  the  meaning  of  evil  and  the  calamities  which 
befall  men,  are  reduced  to  silence,  and  driven  ofl"  the  field 
by  Job,  we  may  be  certain  that  it  was  the  author's  i)urpose 
to  discredit  the  ideas  which  they  represent.     Job  himself 


470   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

offers  no  positive  contribution  to  the  doctrine  of  evil ;  his 
position  is  negative,  and  merely  antagonistic  to  that  of  the 
friends.  But  this  negative  position,  victoriously  maintained 
by  him,  has  the  effect  of  clearing  the  ground ;  and  the 
author  himself  supplies  in  the  prologue  the  positive  truth, 
where  he  communicates  the  real  explanation  of  his  hero's 
calamities,  and  teaches  that  they  were  a  trial  of  his 
righteousness.  It  was,  therefore,  the  author's  purpose  in 
his  work  to  widen  men's  views  of  the  providence  of  God, 
and  set  before  them  a  new  view  of  suffering.  This  may 
be  considered  the  first  great  object  of  the  book. 

This  purpose,  however,  was  in  all  probability  no  mere 
theoretical  one,  but  subordinate  to  some  wider  practical 
design.  No  Hebrew  writer  is  merely  a  poet  or  a  thinker. 
He  is  always  a  teacher.  He  has  men  before  him  in  tlieir 
relations  to  God.  And  it  is  not  usually  men  in  their 
individual  relations,  but  as  members  of  the  family  of  Israel, 
the  people  of  God.  Consequently,  it  is  scarcely  to  be 
doubted  that  the  book  has  a  national  scope.  The  authoi 
considered  his  new  truth  regarding  the  meaning  of  affliction 
as  of  national  interest,  and  to  be  the  truth  needful  for  the 
heart  of  his  people  in  their  circumstances.  But  the  teach- 
ing of  the  book  is  only  half  its  contents.  It  contains  a 
history,  and  this  history  furnishes  the  profoundest  lesson 
to  be  learned.  It  exhibits  deep  and  inexplicable  affliction, 
a  great  moral  conflict,  and  a  victory.  The  author  meant 
the  history  which  he  exhibits  and  his  new  truth  to  inspire 
new  conduct  and  new  faith,  and  to  lead  to  a  new  issue  in 
the  national  fortunes.  In  Job's  sufferings,  undeserved  and 
inexplicable  to  him,  yet  capable  of  an  explanation  most 
consistent  with  the  goodness  and  faithfulness  of  God,  and 
casting  honour  upon  His  steadfast  servants ;  in  his  despair, 
bordering  on  unbelief,  at  last  overcome ;  and  in  the  happy 
issue  of  his  afflictions, — in  all  this  Israel  should  see  itself, 
and  from  the  sight  take  courage  and  forecast  its  own 
history.  Job,  however,  is  scarcely  to  be  considered  Israel, 
the  righteous  servant  under  a  feigned  name ;  he  is  no  more 
parable,  though  such  a  view  is  as  early  as  the  Talmud. 


JOB   AND    DEUTERO-ISAIAH  471 

Withont.  (l(ml)ti,  tliere  is  a  connection  between  the  second 
half  of  Isaiali  and  the  l^ook  of  Jol).  Tlie  hn^uistic  affinities 
are  manifest.  And  in  both  tlie  problem  is  the  same,  the 
sufferings  of  the  righteous  servant  of  the  Lord.  But  '  My 
servant  Job  '  is  scarcely  the  same  as  *  My  righteous  servant ' 
in  Isaiah,  although  in  Job  there  may  be  national  allusion. 
The  solution  of  the  problem  differs  in  the  two.  In  Job, 
sufferings  are  a  trial  of  faith  which,  successfully  borne,  will 
issue  m  restoration.  In  Isaiah  they  are  vicarious,  borne 
by  one  element  in  the  nation  in  behalf  of  the  whole,  and 
issuing  in  the  national  redemption.  Two  such  solutions 
can  scarcely  be  entirely  contemporaneous.  That  of  Isaiah  is 
the  profounder  truth,  and  may  be  later.  But  Job  is  hardly 
to  be  identified  with  the  '  servant  of  the  Lord.'  It  is  the 
elements  of  reality  that  lie  in  the  tradition  of  Job  that 
make  him  of  significance  to  Israel.  It  is  these  elements  of 
reality  common  to  him  with  Israel  in  affliction,  common 
even  to  him  with  humanity  as  a  whole,  confined  within  the 
straitened  limits  set  by  its  own  ignorance,  wounded  to 
death  by  the  mysterious  sorrows  of  life,  tormented  by  the 
uncertainty  whether  its  cry  finds  an  entrance  into  God's 
ear,  alarmed  by  the  irreconcilable  discrepancies  which  it 
seems  to  discover  between  its  necessary  thoughts  of  Him 
and  its  experience  of  Him  in  His  providence,  and  faint 
with  longing  that  it  might  come  unto  His  place  and  behold 
Him,  not  girt  with  majesty,  but  in  human  form,  as  one 
looketh  upon  his  fellow, — it  is  these  elements  of  truth  that 
made  the  history  of  Job  instructive  to  Israel  in  the  times 
of  affliction  when  it  was  set  before  them,  and  to  men  in 
all  ages. 

(3)  Two  threads,  therefore,  requiring  to  be  followed,  run 
through  the  book.  One,  the  discussion  of  the  problem  of 
evil  between  Job  and  his  friends ;  the  other,  the  varying 
attitude  of  Job's  mind  towards  heaven, — the  first  being 
subordinate  to  the  second,  and  helping  to  determine  it. 
Both  Job  and  his  friends  advance  to  the  discussion  of  his 
sufferings  and  of  the  problem  of  evil,  ignorant  of  the  true 
cause  of  his  calamities,  as  that  is  laid  before  us   in  the 


472   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

prologue, — Job  strong  in  his  sense  of  innocence,  and  the 
friends  armed  with  their  theory  of  the  righteousness  of 
God,  who  giveth  to  ev^ery  man  according  to  his  works. 

The  principle  with  which  tlie  three  friends  came  to  the 
consideration  of  Job's  calamities  was  the  principle  that 
calamity  is  the  result  of  evil-doing,  as  on  the  other  hand 
prosperity  is  the  reward  of  righteousness.  Suffering  is  not 
an  accident  or  a  spontaneous  growth  of  the  soil :  man  is 
born  unto  trouble  as  the  sparks  fly  upward ;  there  is  in 
human  life  a  tendency  to  do  evil,  which  draws  down  on 
men  the  chastisement  of  Heaven.  The  form  in  which  the 
principle  is  enunciated  by  Eliphaz,  from  whom  the  other 
speakers  take  their  cue,  is  this  :  where  there  is  suffering 
there  has  been  sin  in  the  sufferer ;  not  necessarily  deadly 
sin,  though  where  the  suffering  is  great  the  sin  must  have 
been  heinous.  Not  suffering,  however,  in  itself,  but  the 
effect  of  it  on  the  sufferer,  is  what  affords  a  key  to  his 
fundamental  character.  Suffering  is  not  always  punitive ; 
it  is  far  oftener  disciplinary,  designed  to  wean  the  man, 
who  is  good  though  still  a  sinner,  from  his  sin.  If  he  sees 
in  his  suffering  the  monition  of  God,  and  turns  from  his 
evil,  his  future  shall  be  rich  in  peace  and  happiness, — so 
happy  is  the  man  whom  God  corrects,  and  who  despises  not 
the  chastening  of  the  Almighty.  His  latter  estate  shall  be 
more  prosperous  than  his  first.  If  he  murmurs  or  resists, 
he  can  only  continue  under  the  multiplying  chastisement 
which  his  impenitence  will  provoke.  For  "  irritation  killeth 
the  foolish  man,  and  indignation  slayeth  the  silly  one" 
(V.  2). 

Now  this  general  idea  is  the  fundamental  principle  of 
moral  government,  the  expression  of  the  natural  conscience, 
— a  principle  common  more  or  less  to  all  peoples,  though 
perhaps  more  promifent  in  the  Shemitic  mind  because  all 
ideas  are  more  prominent  and  simple  there, — not  suggested 
to  Israel  first  by  the  law,  but  found  and  adopted  by  the 
law,  although  it  may  be  sharpened  by  it.  It  is  the  funda- 
mental idea  of  prophecy  no  less  than  of  the  law ;  and,  if 
possible,  of  the  wisdom  or  philosophy  of  the  Hebrews  more 


PROGRESS    OF   JOB's    MIND  473 

than  of  either.  The  friends  did  not  err  in  laying  down 
this  general  principle,  they  erred  in  su])posiiig  it  a  principle 
that  would  cover  the  wide  providence  of  (jlod. 

Job  agreed  with  his  friends  that  afHictions  came  directly 
from  the  hand  of  God,  and  also  that  God  afflicted  those 
whom  He  held  guilty  of  sins.  But  his  conscience  denied 
the  imputation  of  guilt,  whether  insinuated  by  his  friends 
or  implied  in  God's  chastisement  of  him.  Hence  he  was 
driven  to  conclude  that  God  was  unjust ;  that  He  sought 
occasions  against  him,  and  perverted  his  right.  The  position 
of  Job  appeared  to  them  nothing  else  but  impiety,  as  it  came 
very  near  being ;  while  theirs  was  to  him  mere  falsehood, 
and  the  special  pleading  of  sycophants  in  behalf  of  God, 
because  He  was  the  stronger.  Within  these  two  iron  walls 
debate  moves  with  much  brilliancy,  if  not  strictly  of 
argument,  at  least  of  illustration.  The  progress  of  the 
argument  is  not  important  to  us  meantime,  the  other 
thing,  namely,  the  progress  of  Job's  mind  in  his  relation 
to  heaven,  being  the  thing  in  which  for  our  present  purpose 
we  are  interested.  There  is  one  remark  only  which  may 
be  made.  To  a  reader  of  the  poem  now  it  appears  strange 
that  both  parties  were  so  entangled  in  the  meshes  of  their 
preconceptions  regarding  God  as  to  be  unable  to  break 
through  to  broader  views.  The  friends,  while  maintaining 
their  position  that  injustice  on  the  part  of  God  is  incon- 
ceivable, might  have  given  its  due  weight  to  the  persistent 
testimony  of  Job's  conscience  as  that  behind  which  it  is 
impossible  to  go.  They  might  have  found  refuge  in  the 
reflection  that  there  might  be  something  inexplicable  in 
the  ways  of  God,  and  that  affliction  might  have  some  other 
meaning  than  to  punish  the  sinner,  or  even  to  wean  him 
from  his  sin.  And  Job,  while  maintaining  his  innocence 
from  actual  and  overt  sins,  might  have  bowed  beneath  the 
rod  of  God,  and  confessed  that  there  was  such  sinfulness  in 
every  human  life  as  to  account  for  the  severest  chastise- 
ment from  heaven,  or,  at  least,  have  stopped  short  of 
charging  God  foolishly.  Such  a  position  would  certainly 
be  taken  up  by  an  afflicted  saint  now  ;  and  such  an  explana- 


474   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

tion  of  his  suffering  would  suggest  itself  to  the  sufferer 
even  though  it  might  be  in  truth  a  false  explanation. 

But  perliaps  all  this  was  designed  on  the  part  of  the 
author.  The  role  which  he  had  reserved  for  himself  was 
to  teach  the  truth  on  the  question  in  dispute,  and  he 
accomplishes  this  by  allowing  his  performers  to  push  their 
false  principles  to  their  proper  extreme.  The  friends 
of  Job  were  religious  Orientals,  men  to  whom  God  was 
a  Being  in  immediate  contact  with  the  world  and  life, 
effecting  all  things  with  no  intervention  of  second  causes ; 
men  to  whom  the  idea  of  second  causes  was  unknown, 
on  whom  science  had  not  yet  begun  to  dawn,  nor  the 
conception  of  a  Divine  scheme  pursuing  a  distant  end 
by  complicated  means,  in  which  the  individual's  interest 
may  suffer  for  the  larger  good.  The  broad  sympathies  of 
the  author  and  his  sense  of  the  truth  lying  in  the  theory  of 
the  friends,  are  seen  in  the  scope  which  he  allows  them,  in 
the  richness  of  the  thought  and  the  splendid  luxuriance  of 
the  imagery — drawn  from  revelation,  from  the  immemorial 
consent  of  mankind,  the  testimony  of  the  living  conscience, 
and  the  observation  of  Ufe — with  which  he  makes  them 
clothe  their  views.  He  felt  it  needful  to  make  a  departure 
from  a  position  too  narrow  to  confine  the  providence  of 
God  within ;  but  he  was  not  unmindful  of  the  elements  of 
truth  in  the  theory  which  he  was  departing  from,  and, 
while  showing  its  insufficiency,  he  sets  it  forth  in  its  most 
brilliant  form. 

Then  in  regard  to  the  position  maintained  by  Job,  that 
God  was  unjust — the  extravagance  of  his  assertions  was 
occasioned  mainly  by  the  extreme  position  of  his  friends, 
which  left  no  room  for  his  conscious  innocence  along  with 
the  rectitude  of  God.  Again,  the  poet's  purpose,  as  the 
prologue  shows,  was  to  teach  that  afflictions  may  fall  on  a 
man  out  of  all  connection  with  any  offence  of  his  own,  and 
merely  as  a  trial  of  his  righteousness.  Hence  he  allows 
Job,  as  by  a  true  instinct  with  respect  to  the  nature  of  his 
sufferings,  to  repudiate  all  connection  between  them  and  sin 
in  himself.     And,  furtlier,  tlie  severe  conflict  into  which  the 


INNER    MOVEMENT    OF    THE    DRAMA  475 

siiRpicions  of  tlie  Satan  l)roii<;lit  Jul)  could  not  be  exhibited 
wiMiout  pushing  him  to  the  verge  of  ungodliness.  J3ut  in  all 
this  the  poet  is  true  to  the  conditions  of  his  time.  Under 
the  Old  Covenant  the  sense  of  sin  was  less  deep  than  it  is 
now.  In  the  East,  too,  and  especially  in  the  desert,  men 
speak  boldly  of  God.  Such  a  creation  as  Job  would  be  an 
anomaly  in  Christian  drama.  But  nothing  would  be  more 
false  than  to  judge  the  poet's  creation  from  our  later  point 
of  view,  according  to  a  more  developed  sense  of  sin  and  a 
deeper  reverence  for  God  than  belonged  to  antiquity.  It  is 
in  complete  contradiction  to  the  idea  of  the  book  to  assume, 
as  Hengstenberg,  for  example,  does,  that  Job's  spiritual 
pride  was  just  the  cause  of  his  afflictions,  and  the  root  of 
bitterness  in  him  which  must  be  killed  down  ere  he  could 
become  a  true  saint.  The  fundamental  idea,  on  the  con- 
trary, is  that  Job  before  his  afflictions  was  a  true  saint. 
This  is  testified  by  God  Himself,  and  is  the  radical  idea  of 
the  author  in  the  prologue,  and  the  fundamental  conception 
of  the  drama.  Job's  complaints,  indeed,  proved  that  he 
was  not  perfect  or  sinless.  But  this  was  never  supposed. 
Yet  it  was  not  his  sin  that  caused  his  afflictions.  They 
were  the  trial  of  his  faith,  which,  maintaining  itself  in  spite 
of  them,  and  becoming  stronger  through  them,  was  rewarded 
with  a  higher  felicity. 

Now  it  is  this  inner  movement  of  the  drama  that  is  of 
interest  to  us  here — not  the  outward  controversy  between 
Job  and  his  friends  regarding  evil,  but  the  successive 
attitudes  taken  by  Job's  mind  towards  God.  This  is  of 
extreme  interest  in  the  general,  and  it  is  of  more  interest 
in  the  question  wdth  which  we  are  immediately  concerned. 

(4)  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  call  attention  again  to 
the  character  which  the  book  has  in  common  with  all  other 
parts  of  the  Old  Testament — its  religious  character,  the 
word  being  used  in  the  strict  sense.  The  poem  is  not 
philosophic  or  moral.  Job  in  all  his  utterances  starts 
from  liimself,  from  his  own  case  and  experience,  and  not 
from  any  aspect  which  men  or  the  world  without  him 
presented.     He  at  times  includes  others,  even  all  mankind, 


1-'' 


476        THE   THEOLOGY    OF   THE   OLD    TESTAMENT 

ill  his  misery  and  trial ;  he  had  seen  or  heard  of  their  straits 
and  sorrows  too,  and  he  draws  the  colours  with  which  he 
paints  his  own  misery  sometimes  from  the  common  sorrows 
of  the  race.  But  his  position  is  properly  personal  first ;  what 
draws  his  attention  to  the  world  and  the  relations  of  God 
to  it  is  his  own  case.  A  jar  had  occurred  there,  a  dis- 
placement of  his  own  relations  to  God.  Formerly,  he  had 
been  at  peace  with  God ;  suddenly,  through  a  single  step  of 
reasoning,  his  sufferings,  he  beholds  God  in  anger  with  him 
How  far  his  belief  that  God  was  angry  with  him,  as  he 
concluded  He  was  from  the  construction  he  put  upon  his 
sufferings,  alienated  his  mind  from  God,  is  not  easy  always 
to  perceive.  That  his  sufferings  would  perfectly  alienate 
his  mind  was  the  prediction  of  the  Satan,  and  his  hope  in 
plaguing  him.  He  was  disappointed.  But  the  very  problem 
of  the  book  is  this  ultimate  condition  which  Job's  heart 
will  settle  into ;  and  what  the  chief  part  of  it  is  occupied 
in  showing  is  the  ever-varying,  wavering  attitude  of  the 
sufferer's  spirit,  sometimes  standing  firm  and  sometimes 
swaying  as  if  it  would  altogether  fall,  until  at  last  it 
settles  into  a  composure  that  nothing  can  shake. 

Hence  the  greater  part  of  Job's  speeches  are  monologue, 
or  speech  to  One  aljsent  and  resolutely  refusing  to  hear. 
The  friends  are  present,  but  their  presence  is  subordinate. 
Their  shallow  theories  occasionally  irritate  and  provoke 
a  sarcasm :  Ye  are  the  peojjle,  and  wisdom  will  die  tvith 
you ;  their  perverse  attempts  at  consolation  sometimes  in- 
crease the  solitude  and  wretchedness  of  the  sufferer,  and  he 
pathetically  beseeches  them  to  be  silent :  Miserable  com- 
forters are  all  of  you;  woidd  that  ye  were  silent,  and  it 
should  he  your  wisdom.  But  they  are  too  insignificant  to 
detain  him,  he  has  to  do  with  Another ;  and  their  words 
form  but  starting-points  from  which  the  spirit  begins  its 
appeals  to  Him.  Like  one  sick  who  has  been  drawn  into 
half-consciousness  by  the  entrance  of  some  visitor,  and 
utters  some  words  of  apparent  recognition,  but  straightway 
relapses  and  soliloquises  with  himself,  or  speaks  to  someone 
absent  who  is  thought  near,  Job  is  for  a  moment  drawn 


THE    MENTAL    CONDITION  477 

into  controversy  as  each  new  comforter  delivers  himself  of 
his  solution  of  tlie  mystery  of  the  universe ;  hut  speedily  he 
turns  from  them,  or,  thou*;]!  hefore  him,  they  make  no 
impression  on  his  eye,  which  is  fascinated  hy'tlie  awful 
form  of  Another,  or  strained  so  as  to  pierce  the  deepest 
heavens  that  it  might  come  to  His  place.  And  thus  to 
Him  he  pours  out  his  heart,  pleading  his  former  relation  of 
love  to  Him  :  Oh,  that  I  were  as  in  months  past  ! ;  seeking  to 
startle  Him  with  the  certain  consequences  of  his  treatment : 
Thou  will  seek  me,  hut  I  shall  he  gone ;  calling  passionately 
that  He  would  come  and  solve  the  mystery  of  his  troubles, 
and  sinking  into  hopelessness  when  He  refuses  to  appear 
or  to  hear  him ;  provoked  apparently  by  this  obstinate 
silence,  and  flinging  indignant  words  against  Him  who  uses 
His  omnipotent  power  to  crush  a  moth ;  looking  all  around 
and  proclaiming  all  on  earth  to  be  impenetrable  darkness ; 
and  yet  again,  in  the  midst  of  all  this  darkness  and  con- 
fusion, groping  his  way  back  to  Him,  like  a  child  who  has 
Hed  in  tears  and  anger  from  the  hand  of  a  chastening 
father,  sure  that  He  is  his  Eedeemer  and  will  yet  show 
that  He  is  this,  and  will  return  to  him  and  yearn  over  the 
work  of  His  own  hands.  It  is  needful  to  understand  the 
exact  mental  condition  out  of  which  the  thoughts  of  im- 
mortality spring,  in  order  to  estimate  properly  the  thoughts 
themselves.  And  nothing  is  further  from  the  truth  than 
to  regard  the  hopes  of  immortality  expressed  in  Job  as  the  -^ 
results  of  philosophical  reasoning.  They  are  the  broken  cries, 
after  the  light  of  God's  face,  of  one  to  whom  around  God 
the  clouds  and  darkness  seem  to  have  immovably  settled. 

Before  the  friends'  arrival,  we  find  only  one  allusion 
from  Job  to  the  other  world  :  "  Naked  came  I  out  of  my 
mother's  womb, and  naked  shall  I  return  thither"  (i.  21) — 
an  allusion  that  indicates  nothing  but  the  forced  composure 
with  which  he  looked  forward  to  it.  But  when  the  friends 
arrived,  their  amazement  and  dumb  sympathy,  combined 
with  his  protracted  anguish  and  those  regrets  which  he 
many  times  utters  so  pathetically  over  a  too  brief  life, — 
all  this  made  him  break  out  in  the  bitter  lamentations  of 


478   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

chap,  iii.,  wliero  we  have  fioiu  him  a  full  pictiiro  of  tlie 
state  of  the  dead.  It  is  curious  that  his  pictures  vary 
with  the  point  of  view  from  wliich  they  are  seen.  Chap, 
iii.  is  a  paroxysm  of  human  sorrow,  which  the  sight  of 
sympathising  men  brought  upon  him.  And  from  the  side 
of  the  wretchedness  of  human  life,  at  least  such  as  his,  the 
state  of  the  dead  seems  the  profoundest  blessedness : 

'*Why  died  I  not  from  the  womb? 
Coming  out  of  the  womb,  why  gave  I  not  up  the  ghost? 
Why  did  the  knees  hold  me  up? 
And  the  breasts  that  I  should  suck? 
For  now  should  I  have  lain  down  and  been  quiet ; 
I  should  have  slept :  then  would  there  have  been  rest  to  me 
With  kings  and  counsellors  of  the  earth, 
Who  built  desolate  places  for  themselves ; 
Or  with  princes  who  had  gold, 
Who  filled  their  houses  with  silver  : 
Or  as  a  hidden  untimely  birth,  I  should  not  be; 
As  infants  that  never  saw  light. 
There  the  wicked  cease  from  troubling; 
And  there  the  weary  are  at  rest. 
The  prisoners  rest  together ; 
They  hear  not  the  taskmaster's  voice. 
The  small  and  great  are  there  alike  ; 
And  the  servant  is  free  from  his  master  "(iii.  11-19). 

That  which  makes  misery  and  sorrow  overpowering  is 
not  the  pure  evil,  but  that  element  of  tenderness  which  the 
memory  of  former  things  mixes  with  it.  Had  he  not  been 
cruelly  cared  for,  he  would  have  died ;  and  the  stillness  and 
majesty  of  death  ravish  his  sight  and  carry  him  away. 
His  words  become  calm,  and  he  forgets  his  anguish, 
thinking  himself  one  of  the  happy  dead.  That  rest  which 
he  would  have  enjoyed  is  unbroken  and  profound  like 
deep  sleep ;  royal  and  in  state ;  princely  and  with  the 
rich  of  the  earth ;  broken  by  no  sharp  pains,  but  uncon- 
scious and  still  as  the  unmoved  faces  of  infants  born  before 
their  time ;  common  to  all,  the  evil  and  the  good,  the 
wicked  ceasing  their  unquiet  life  of  evil,  and  the  weary 
being  at  rest.  The  two  ideas  most  prominent  in  this  picture 
of  the  condition  of  the  dead  are  the  splendour  and  pomp 


JOB   IN    ALIENATION  479 

of  death,  where  all  tlio  great  who  played  famous  parts  in 
life  congregate,  and  even  the  meaner  men  are  admitted  to 
tlieir  fellowship ;  and  tlie  freedom  and  the  painlessness  of 
it,  for  it  is  the  common  refuge  of  all  who  are  wretched  here. 
These  two  things  are  in  contrast  with  the  s([iialor  and 
degradation  of  Job's  present  condition,  and  witli  the  un- 
bearable anguish  of  his  disease.  All  that  can  fairly  be 
inferred  from  such  a  passage  is  the  belief  in  the  existence 
of  a  place  of  the  dead,  wliere  good  and  evil  alike  are 
assembled ;  but  the  colours  in  which  it  is  painted  are 
borrowed  largely  from  the  grave,  and  tlie  condition  of  the 
body  in  death. 

With  reference  to  the  problem  of  the  book,  it  may  be 
asked :  Does  Job's  mind  show  any  progress  in  this  chapter 
towards  disowning  God  to  His  face  ?  And  it  may  be  replied 
that  it  does.  For  where  he  alludes  to  God,  the  nature  of 
bis  allusion  seems  to  show  the  beginnings  at  least  of 
ahenation ;  he  will  not  name  Him,  but  speaks  indirectly,  as 
of  one  distant.  Why  gives  He  light  to  him  that  is  in  misery  ? 
And  though  it  is  chiefly  an  outburst  of  pure  human  grief 
that  we  have  in  chap,  iii.,  and  while  it  might  be  admitted 
to  be  excessive  and  therefore  sinful,  without  being  a  sin  of 
the  kind  called  disowning  God  to  His  face, — as  it  can  hardly 
be  contended  that  the  similar  complaint  of  Jeremiali,  who 
uses  almost  the  same  words,  formed  a  sin  of  that  kind ;  yet 
it  is  not  improbable  that  the  whole  complaints  are  tinged 
with  that  same  religious  feeling  which  appears  in  the  only 
allusion  to  God  in  the  chapter. 

The  next  allusion  to  the  place  or  state  of  the  dead 
adds  nothing  to  that  already  given,  except  that  the  brevity 
of  this  life  is  lamented  and  contrasted  with  the  unalterable 
condition  of  death : 

"My  days  have  been  swifter  than  a  weaver's  shuttle, 
And  are  spent  witliout  hope.  .  .  . 
The  cloud  consumes  and  is  gone, 

So  he  that  goeth  down  to  Sheol  shall  come  up  no  mora 
He  shall  not  return  again  to  his  house, 
And  his  place  shall  know  him  no  more  ^  (viL  6). 


480   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

The  sleep  of  death  is  unbroken  and  eternal.  No  donht 
human  feeling  and  regret  might  utter  such  words  even 
still,  having  in  view  the  present  manner  of  earthly  life 
to  wliich  none  shall  ever  return.  And  it  may  be  diffi- 
cult to  infer  with  certainty  from  such  language  any- 
thing about  Job's  belief.  Yet  the  language  here  and  in 
chap.  xiv. : 

"Till  the  heavens  be  no  more,  they  shall  not  awake, 
Nor  be  roused  out  of  their  sleep," 

hardly  permits  us  to  suppose  that  the  hope  of  a  resurrection 
was  an  element  of  his  ordinary  faith. 

Again,  in  the  chapters  from  which  these  passages  are 
taken,  the  progress  of  his  mind  in  alienation  from  God  is 
decided.  He  has  no  hesitation  in  declaring  the  treatment 
meted  out  to  him  to  be  injurious  and  unjust,  and  demands 
of  the  friends  whether  he  be  not  able  to  say  whether  he  be 
justly  afflicted  or  no : 

"Is  there  falsehood  in  my  tongue? 
Cannot  my  taste  discern  what  is  perverse?" 

And  then  he  passes  on  to  a  description  of  the  sad  condition 
both  of  all  men  and  of  himself  in  particular,  rising  into  a 
sarcastic  remonstrance  with  Heaven  over  its  treatment  of 
him,  as  if  he  was  and  must  be  coerced : 

"Am  I  a  sea,  or  a  monster  of  the  sea, 
That  Thou  settest  a  watch  over  me?" 

In  his  indignant  bitterness  he  travesties  the  viiith  Psalm 
to  express  the  Deity's  incessant  occupation  with  him : 

"  What  is  man,  that  Thou  shouldst  magnify  him, 
And  set  Thy  thoughts  upon  him? 
That  Thou  shouldst  visit  him  every  morning. 
And  try  him  every  moment? 
How  long  wilt  Thou  not  look  away  from  me?" 

He  even  ventures,  with  incredible  boldness,  to  ask  the 
Almighty,  supposing  he  had  sinned,  how  such  a  thing  co\ild 
affect  Him,  and  to  reproach  Him  with  His  too  watchful 
scrutiny  of  wretched  men : 


JOB   AND   GOD  481 

"If  I  have  sinned,  what  do  I  unto  Thee, 
Thuu  observer  of  men  ? 

And  why  wilt  Tlioii  not  pardon  my  transgression, 
Ajid  take  away  mine  iniquity?" 

Here  we  have  the  beginning  of  a  singular  distinction 
wliich  the  mind  of  Job  begins  to  draw  in  the  Divine  Beinir. 
Tliere  is  an  external  God  and  there  is  a  Iiidden  God ;  the 
one  but  an  arbitrary  Omnipotence,  the  other  the  Father  of 
Mercies.  To  the  endless  harpings  of  the  three,  who  were 
*  the  people,'  that  God  was  just.  Job  ironically  replies :  Of 
course  He  is,  /  Jcnow  that  it  is  so ;  because  no  one  can 
vindicate  his  right  against  omnipotence : 

"  How  can  a  man  be  just  with  God  ? 
If  he  should  desire  to  contend  with  Him, 
He  could  not  answer  Him  one  of  a  thousand. 
Wise  in  heart,  and  strong  in  jjower ; 
Who  can  oppose  Him  and  prosper  ?  .  .  . 
Though  I  were  rigliteous,  my  mouth  would  condemn  me : 
Though  innocent,  it  would  pervert  my  cause. 
I  am  innocent ! " 

But  though  he  is  innocent,  this  arbitrary  Might  has  deter- 
mined to  hold  him  guilty : 

"  I  know  Thou  wilt  not  hold  me  innocent. 
I  have  to  be  guilty  ;  why  then  should  I  weary  myself  in  vain  ? 
Though  I  wash  myself  with  snow, 
And  cleanse  my  hands  with  lye  ; 
Thou  wilt  plunge  me  into  the  ditch, 
And  mine  own  clothes  shall  abhor  me.* 

Tliat  God  holds  him  guilty  is  the  interpretation  put  by  Job 
upon  his  afflictions : 

"  I  will  speak  in  the  bitterness  of  my  soul. 
I  will  say  unto  God,  Do  not  hold  me  guilty ; 
Show  me  wherefore  Thou  contendest  with  me.* 

And  we  might  almost  imagine  that  the  Satan's  prediction 
had  come  true,  and  that  Job  had  renounced  God  to  His 
face,  when  he  proclahns  the  government  of  the  world 
to  be  indiscriminately  cruel : 

"  He  destroys  the  righteous  and  the  wicked. 
When  the  scourge  slays  suddenly. 
He  mocks  at  the  distress  of  the  innocent " ; 

31 


482   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

or  when,  in  a  passage  in  which  he  reaches  the  cKmax  of 
extravagance,  he  asserts  in  the  face  of  God  that  all  the 
skill  and  care  and  seeming  affection  which  He  lavished  on 
his  creation  and  early  years,  were  hut  in  order  that  He 
might  the  more  ingeniously  torture  him  as  now  He  does : 

"Didst  not  Thou  make  me  flow  as  milk, 
And  thicken  me  Uke  the  curd  ? 
Clothe  me  with  skin  and  flesh, 
With  bones  and  sinews  interweave  me. 
Life  and  favour  Thou  didst  grant  me, 
And  Thy  providence  preserved  my  spirit. 
Yet  these  things  Thou  didst  hide  in  Thy  heart] 
I  know  that  this  was  in  Thy  mind  : 
If  I  sinned,  Thou  wouldst  observe  me, 
And  wouhlst  not  absolve  me  of  my  sin. 
Were  I  wicked,  woe  unto  me ; 
Were  I  righteous,  I  must  not  lift  up  my  head. 
Filled  with  shame,  and  the  sight  of  my  misery, 
Should  I  lift  it  up,  Thou  wouldst  hunt  me  like  a  lion. 
And  show  Thy  wonderful  power  upon  me "  (x.  10-16). 

Yet  even  here,  where  he  reaches  perhaps  the  highest  point 
of  alienation  to  which  he  comes,  there  is  no  direct  renuncia- 
tion of  God.  For  even  amidst  these  loud  and  bitter  cries 
there  are  heard  undertones  of  supplication  to  the  Unseen 
God,  the  ancient  God  of  his  former  days,  the  real  God  who 
is  behind  this  menacing  angry  form  that  now  pursues  him : — 
"  Thou  wilt  seek  me,  but  I  shall  be  no  more  " ;  "  Thy  hands 
have  fashioned  me  and  made  me,  and  yet  Thou  dost  destroy 
me  " ;  "  Oh  that  a  clean  might  come  out  of  an  unclean  "  ; 
"and  dost  Thou  open  Thine  eyes  upon  such  a  one,  and 
bringest  me  into  judgment  with  Thee?"  (vii.  21,  x.  8, 
xiv.  3,  4). 

The  thoughts  that  had  taken  complete  possession  of 
Job's  mind  were  that  his  afflictions  were  direct  inflictions 
on  him  by  God  in  anger,  and  that  the  afflictions  were  of 
sucli  a  kind  that  they  must  very  speedily  prove  final. 
God's  anger  would  pursue  him,  he  saw  well,  even  to  the 
grave.  We  must  consider  him  a  man  in  middle  life,  older, 
perhaps,  than  some  of  the  younger  of  his  comforters,  yet 
much  younger  than  the  eldest  of  them.     And  thus  he  saw 


HID    IN    SHEOL  483 

liinisolf  cuii  off  in  tlic  midst  of  liis  dnys.  And  over  the 
grave  absolute  darkness  lumg  before  him.      It  was: 

"A  land  of  darkness  and  of  death  shade  ; 
A  land  of  gloom,  like  the  thick  darkness  ; 
Of  deatli  shade,  and  disorder, 
Wliere  the  liglit  is  as  thick  darkness"  (x.  21,  22). 

Many  times  all  these  thoughts  gatlier  togetlicr  and  press 
upon  liim,  and  he  falls  into  a  paroxysm  of  sorrow.  Yet 
it  is  out  of  these  very  paroxysms  that  new  and  bolder 
thoughts  spring,  and  that  new  hopes  are  engendered,  which, 
if  they  are  transient,  yet  by  their  momentary  glory  still  the 
wild  motion  of  the  heart  and  soften  the  feelings  towards 
Heaven. 

One  of  the  most  remarkable  of  these  is  in  chap, 
xiv.  There  he  breaks  into  a  sorrowful  wail  over  the 
wretchedness  of  man,  and  his  inherent  weakness, — man 
born  of  woman  is  of  few  days  and  full  of  trouble, — and  the 
rigid  treatment  of  him  by  God — "  Oh  that  a  clean  might 
come  out  of  an  unclean ;  and  dost  Thou  open  Thine  eyes 
upon  such  a  one?";  and  over  the  complete  extinction  of  his 
life  in  death,  as  complete  as  that  of  the  waters  wdiich  the 
sun  sucks  out  of  the  pool,  more  to  be  lamented  in  this 
than  are  the  trees  which,  if  cut  down,  will  sprout  again. 
The  very  extremity  of  the  misery  of  man,  so  awfully 
realised  in  himself,  forces  into  his  mind  the  thought  that 
there  might  be  another  life ;  that  when  God's  anger  was 
passed,  which  now  consumed  him,  He  might  remember  His 
creature  and  awake  him  to  life  and  blessedness :  "  Oh  that 
Thou  wouldst  hide  me  in  Sheol ;  that  Thou  wouldst  appoint 
me  a  set  time  and  remember  me"  (xiv.  13).  Yet  the 
thought  is  but  a  momentary  flash  of  light,  serving  only  to 
sliow  the  darkness,  and  in  a  moment  is  swallowed  up  by 
the  gloom  about  him, — "if  a  man  die,  shall  lie  live  agnin  ?  " 
Still  the  phantom,  for  he  will  not  believe  it  to  be  (piite  a 
phantom,  is  too  glorious  to  lose  sight  of,  and  he  will,  in 
spite  of  reason  and  experience,  pursue  it, — "  All  the  days 
of  my  appointed  time  would  I  wait  till  my  change  came ; 
Thou  wouldst  call,  and  I  would  answer  ;  Thou  wouldst  yearn 


484   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

after  the  work  of  Thy  hands."  Such  would  be  the  meeting 
of  the  creature  and  his  reconciled  Creator,  whose  anger  had 
turned  away. 

The  thought  that  dawns  upon  Job  here  is  certainly  that 
of  a  new  life  in  the  body;  for  it  is  to  this  alone  tliat  the  rising 
objection  applies  :  If  a  man  die,  shall  he  live  again  ?  And 
however  momentary  the  thought  be,  yet  it  is  once  started. 
And  it  is  certainly  probable  that  the  author  of  the  passage 
was  himself  not  unfamiliar  with  such  thoughts.  Else  he 
could  hardly  have  let  his  hero  give  expression  to  them. 
But  what  is  always  to  be  observed  is  the  ground  on  which 
tlie  hope  of  resurrection  or  any  hope  is  founded  ;  it  is  the 
complete  reconciliation  and  reunion  of  the  creature  with 
God.  Here  there  is  estrangement :  in  Sheol  the  separation 
is  wider.  As  the  xlixtli  Psahn  expresses  it,  in  this  brief  life 
upon  the  earth  the  living  man  is  a  sojourner,  a  guest  with 
tlie  living  God  ;  but  his  visit  ends,  and  he  departs  at  death. 
But  wdiat  both  the  creature  and  the  Creator  yearn  for  is 
complete  fellowship — that  their  joy  may  be  full ;  and  this 
fellowship  must  be  of  the  whole  person — body  and  spirit. 

Between  this  passage  and  the  even  more  remarkable 
one  in  chap.  xix.  there  is  a  step  which  cannot  be  omitted. 
In  chap.  xiv.  the  hope  of  meeting  God  can  hardly  sustain 
itself  at  all.  It  is  little  but  a  rainbow  that  melts  again 
into  the  dark  cloud.  The  hope  consists  of  two  elements, 
the  overpassing  of  God's  anger,  and  the  reunion  of  the 
creature  with  Him  in  blessedness,  which  depends  on  that. 
But  this  overpassing  of  His  anger,  how  shall  it  be  hoped 
for  ?  Job's  solution  of  this  comes  from  that  double  repre- 
sentation of  God  which  has  been  alluded  to.  The  outer 
God  is  pursuing  liim,  but  the  Unseen  lieart  of  God  sym- 
pathises with  him.  The  outer  God  holds  him  guilty,  but 
the  consciousness  of  God  knows  his  innocence.  He  appeals 
from  God  to  God.  He  asks  God  to  procure  the  recognition 
of  his  innocence  with  God.  The  outer  God — which  is  God 
in  that  aspect  of  Him  that  is  the  cause  of  Job's  sorrows — 
will  pursue  him  to  death,  and  his  blood  wdll  lie  upon  the 
earth.      But  he  can  appeal  to  the  earth  not  to  cover  it,  as 


job's  witness  in  heaven  485 

innocent  blood,  till  it  be  avenged ;  and  tbat  there  is  an 
Avenger  in  heaven,  he  knows : 

"My  face  is  inflamed  with  weeping, 
And  a  shadow  of  death  is  on  my  eyes ; 
Although  no  violence  is  in  my  hands, 
And  my  prayer  is  pure. 
Oh  earth,  cover  not  thou  my  blood, 
And  let  my  cry  have  no  resting-place. 
Even  now,  behold,  my  witness  is  in  heaven, 
And  He  who  can  attest  me  is  on  high. 
My  mockers  are  my  friends, 
My  eye  droppeth  unto  God  ; 
That  He  would  do  justice  to  a  man  with  God, 
And  between  a  man  and  his  fellows  ! 

Give  a  pledge,  I  pray  Thee, 

Be  thou  my  surety  with  Thyself"  (xvi.  16,  xvii.  3). 

He  weepingly  implores  God  to  do  him  justice  with  God ;  to 
procure  tbat  God  would  acknowledge  bis  innocence.  He 
prays  God  to  give  him  a  pledge  that  He  will  use  means 
with  God  that  his  righteousness  be  confessed. 

This  is  one  of  the  most  singular  passages  in  the  book. 
Job  is  not  able  to  present  to  himself  otherwise  these  two 
things,  namely,  the  thought  that  his  afflictions  are  proof  of 
God's  anger,  and  show  that  God  holds  him  guilty ;  and  his 
own  consciousness  of  his  innocence,  and  assurance  that 
God  is  also  aware  of  it.  This  was  the  only  way  in  which 
an  Oriental  mind  could  express  such  an  idea.  We  take 
refuge  in  a  scheme  of  providence,  a  great  general  plan,  the 
particular  developments  of  which  do  not  express  the  mind 
of  God  towards  individuals.  But  to  the  Oriental,  God 
was  present  in  each  event ;  and  each  event  befalling  the 
individual  expressed  God's  feeling  towards  him. 

The  other  expression  of  confidence  in  chap.  xix.  is 
reached  in  the  same  way.  It  follows  that  Jiardest  of 
passages  in  which  Bildad,  with  concealed  insinuations, 
pictured  the  awful  fate  of  tlie  sinner.  Under  his  terrible 
picture  he  wrote,  TJicse  are  ike  liahitatkrm  of  the  wicked ,  and 
lield  it  up  before  Job.  It  was  meant  for  him.  The  terrilde 
distemper,  "  the  lirst-burn  of  death,"  which  consumes  the 


486   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

sinner's  limbs,  was  too  plain  an  allusion  to  his  leprosy  to 
be  mistaken  by  him.  The  brimstone  that  burns  up  the 
sinner's  habitation  is  also  the  fire  of  God  that  fell  on  Job's 
cattle.  The  tree,  withered  at  the  roots  and  cut  down, 
reminds  Job  too  easily  of  his  own  wasted  state,  and  the  sad 
calamities  that  had  lopped  off  his  children  from  liim.  He 
is  the  sinner.  To  every  sentence  of  his  oration  Bildad  adds, 
'  Thou  art  the  man.' 

Against  this  application  Job's  whole  soul  protests  and 
maintains  his  innocence.  But  while  maintaining  it  he 
realises  with  new  distinctness  his  dreary  isolation,  God 
and  men  having  alike  turned  against  him ;  which  he 
describes  in  most  pathetic  words.  Yet  so  profound  and 
unalterable  is  his  conviction  of  his  innocence,  that  as  with 
a  desperate  leap  out  of  the  depth  of  his  misery  he  rises  to 
the  assurance  that  his  innocence  shall  yet  be  revealed,  that 
God  will  publicly  declare  it,  and  that  he  himself  shall  hear 
the  declaration  and  see  the  Eedeemer  that  makes  it.  The 
joyful  anticipation  of  this  overcomes  him,  and  he  faints 
with  longing — "  My  reins  are  consumed  within  me." 

It  is  the  lowest  ebb  of  sorrow  that  precedes  the  flow 
of  this  full  tide  of  faith.  God  not  only  afflicted  him  with 
trouble,  but  removed  from  him  all  human  sympathy.  There 
is  something  more  breaking  to  the  heart  in  the  turning 
away  of  men  from  us,  than  in  the  acutest  pain.  It  crushes 
us  quite.  We  steel  ourselves  against  it  for  a  time,  and  rise 
in  bitterness  to  it  and  resentment.  But  it  breaks  us  at 
last,  and  we  soften  and  are  utterly  crushed.  And  this 
seems  the  way,  whether  men  frown  on  us  with  justice  or 
no.  So  there  comes  on  Job,  when  he  sets  before  himself 
his  complete  casting  off'  by  men,  by  his  friends  and  his 
household,  and  even  by  the  little  children  who  mocked  his 
attempts  to  rise  from  the  ground,  a  complete  breakdown, 
and  he  bursts  into  that  most  touching  of  all  his  cries : 
"  Pity  me,  0  my  friends  !  Why  do  ye  persecute  me  like  God  ?  " 
But  his  appeal  is  vain.  Those  Pharisaic  nniscles  will  not 
move.  The  rigidity  of  that  religious  decorum  no  human  feel- 
ing shall  break.      Secure  as  they  are  in  their  principles  and 


THE   AFTERMAN  487 

their  piety,  tlicir  countenance  shows  l)ut  austere  reprobation 
of  their  wicked  friend.  Tliey  will  he  more  austere  because 
he  is  their  friend,  and  because  they  feel  it  a  sacrilice  to  be 
austere.  And,  looking  into  their  hard  eyes  and  set  faces, 
Job  reads  only  their  unalterable  verdict  against  him.  So  he 
turns  away  from  them,  and  the  desire  suddenly  seizes  him 
to  make  his  appeal  to  posterity,  to  record  in  writing  his 
protestation  of  his  innocence,  to  grave  it  in  the  rock  that  it 
might  last  for  ever,  and  that  all  generations  to  the  end  o>f 
time  might  read,  when  they  listened  to  his  story,  the 
solemn  denial  of  his  guilt.  "  Oh  that  my  words  were 
written,  that  they  were  graved  upon  a  book !  That  they 
were  inscribed  with  an  iron  pen  and  lead  in  the  rock  for 
ever  !  "  The  words  are  not  the  words  about  his  Eedeemer 
which  follow,  but  his  protestation  of  his  innocence. 

But  if  that  were  possible,  how  small  a  thing  it  would 
after  all  be !  He  needs  more,  and  shall  have  more.  His 
invincible  confidence  in  his  innocence  makes  him  feel  that 
behind  all  the  darkness  there  looks  a  face  that  shines  upon 
him.  There  is  a  living  God  who  knows  his  innocence,  who 
shall  yet  declare  it  to  him,  to  men,  publicly,  visibly, — whom 
his  eyes  shall  see.  That  life  behind  lived  in  God's  fellow- 
ship cannot  go  for  nothing, — these  endearments  are  not  for 
ever  broken  off.  "  I  know  that  my  Eedeemer  is  living : 
whom  I  shall  see,  and  mine  eyes  shall  behold  Him  ;  and  my 
reins  faint  within  me." 

The  passage  is  of  much  difficulty.  The  main  points 
are  these  : — ver.  25,  "  But  I  know  that  my  Eedeemer  liveth, 
and  in  after  time,  as  an  afterman,  will  stand  upon  the  earth." 
Job  dies  under  his  afflictions,  unacknowledged  and  held 
guilty ;  but  there  is  one  that  liveth,  who  stands  in  such  a 
relation  to  him  tliat  he  calls  liim  his  Eedeemer.  Whether 
^^^  mean  next  of  kin,  i.e.  one  on  whom  as  next  of  kin  it 
devolves  to  take  up  his  cause  and  right  it,  or  more  generally 
one  wlio  will  ri^lit  him  and  deliver  him  from  the  wrong's 
which  he  suffers,  matters  very  little.  The  thing  is  that 
there  is  such  a  Deliverer,  and  that  He  lives,  thougli  Job 
dies ;  and  that  when  Job  is  dead  this  Eedeemer  will  stand 


48<S        THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD   TESTAMENT 

upon  the  earth.  The  word  PH^  niay  mean  an  afterman^ 
either  as  one  after  me,  taking  my  rights,  or  simply  as  one 
coming  after  me.  In  the  one  case  it  repeats  the  idea  of 
p^^,  in  the  otlier  the  idea  of  liveth.  And  the  word  "isy,  dust, 
seems  used  for  the  earth,  not  without  reference  to  it  as  tlie 
place  wliere  the  sufferer  himself  lies  in  death.  The  ideas 
contained  in  the  verse  are  simply  these — tliat  he  has  an 
avenger,  a  sustainer  of  his  rights ;  that  this  Eedeemer 
liveth,  dieth  not ;  and  that  He  will  manifest  Himself  upon 
the  dust,  whither  He  returns  to  uphold  the  cause  of  the 
afflicted  innocent,  and  declare  his  innocence. 

"And  after  my  skin  which  is  destroyed — this  here, 
Even  without  my  flesh  shall  I  see  God  : 
Whom  I  shall  see, 

And  my  own  eyes  behold,  and  not  another's  ; 
And  my  reins  faint  within  me." 

Two  things  were  needed  for  his  vindication — one,  that  his 
innocence  should  be  publicly  proclaimed  among  men.  This 
is  expressed  in  ver.  25.  But  how  small  a  thing  that  would 
be  !  His  sorrow  lay  chiefly  here,  that  God  was  estranged 
from  him.  His  heart  and  flesh  cry  out  for  the  living  God. 
The  other  half  of  his  assurance  concerns  himself — he  shall 
see  this  Redeemer,  wlio  shall  appear  on  his  behalf. 

The  expression  niT"^Di^3  is  a  relative  clause,  and  nxT 
seems  used  86l/ctik(o<; — pointing  to  his  body :  "  After  this 
my  skin,  which  they  consumed  "  ;  and  ''■!^"^P^  is  the  apodosis 
— "  then  without  my  flesh."  What  Job  looks  for  is  an 
appearance  of  God,  a  vision  of  Him  for  himself,  an  inter- 
position of  Him  on  his  behalf.  He  faints  with  longing  for 
that  joyful  sight.  Now  the  question,  of  course,  is  much 
agitated  among  interpreters — When  does  Job  anticipate 
this  appearance  of  God  to  be  made  on  his  behalf  ?  Various 
views  are  contended  for,  which  all  depend  on  the  different 
renderings  of  ^"^^^p^  iu  verse  26.  Some  render,  'And 
from  my  flesh  shall  I  see ' ;  that  is,  I  in  my  flesh — 
looking  from  it — shall  see  God.  This  translation  leads  to 
two  views:  (1)  That  Job  shall  see  God  even  though  he 
be  reduced  to  a  mass  of  flesh — his  skin  gone  through   his 


THE  HOPE  OF  SEEING  OOD  489 

disease  ;  or  (2)  that),  endowed  w  illi  new  llesli,  lie  sjiall  see 
God — iu  a  new  resurieetion  Ixxly.  Now  the  lirst  of  these 
views  seems  out  of  the  ([uestioii  :  a  distinction  between  his 
skin  and  his  llesli  is  inconceivalde.  Elsewhere  he  says,  "  my 
bone  cleaveth  to  my  skin  and  to  my  llesh  "  (xix.  20).  His 
skin  and  his  llesh  cannot  be  put  in  antithesis,  but  nuist  mean 
the  same  tiling.  This  seems  also  to  go  against  the  second 
view,  and  it  is  improbable  that  Job  would  have  called  his 
new  body,  had  he  imagined  such  a  thing,  my  flesh,  or  that 
he  would  have  called  liis  present  body  his  shin  merely, 
without  adding  his  flesh  also.  Others  render,  '  and  away  r^ 
from  my  flesh  shall  I  see  God'^ie.  and  without  my  flesh. 
This,  again,  is  taken  dhlerently — (1)  by  some  in  a  com- 
parative sense,  without  my  flesh — a  mere  skeleton,  but  of 
course  still  alive  in  this  life ;  and  (2)  by  others  absolutely 
— stripped  of  my  flesh,  disembodied,  no  more  in  this  life. 
In  the  one  case  Job  is  assured  he  shall  see  God  in  this  life, 
however  great  the  ravages  be  which  disease  has  made  on 
him ;  in  the  other,  he  shall  see  God  only  after  this  life  is 
ended.  Now,  I  think  that  be' ween  these  two  views  the 
truth  lies,  and  that  no  other  sense  is  possible.  On  this 
alternative  the  following  remarks  may  be  made ; 

(1)  It  is  above  all  things  to  be  noticed  what  to  Job's 
own  mind  is  the  main  point.  It  is  that  he  shall  see  God.  | 
The  connection  of  the  whole  is :  But  I  know  that  my 
Eedeemer  liveth,  and  ...  I  shall  see  God.  The  question, 
whether  here  or  elsewhere,  is  not  the  main  point.  His 
afiaictions  were  to  Job  the  seal  and  token  of  God's  auger, 
— in  being  afflicted  Job  felt  God's  face  withdrawn  from 
him.  God  was  imputing  sins  to  him.  And  so  were  his 
friends,  arguing  on  his  calamities.  What  Job  is  assured  of 
is,  that  God  know^s  his  innocence — is  still  in  friendship  with 
him.  And  this  invincible  assurance  is  the  basis  of  the 
other  invincible  assurance^  that  this  relation  of  God  to  him 
will  yet  be  manifested.  It  will  be  manifested  to  his  own 
joy — his  eyes  shall  see  God,  and  to  the  conviction  also  of 
men.  Nothing  speculative  mixes  in  the  question.  It  is  , 
purely  a   personal  faith.       The    future    or    the    present   is 


490   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

iuditfereiit  so  far  as  tlic  true  point  of  Job's  position  is 
concerned. 

(2)  A  second  point  is  this.  I  think  it  must  be 
conceded  that  Job  does  not  anticipate  restitution  to  health 
and  prosperity  in  this  Hfe.  Neither  in  this  chapter  nor 
anywhere  does  he  express  such  an  opinion,  but  always,  and 
consistently,  an  opposite  one.  He  calls  such  a  view,  when 
expressed  by  his  friends,  mockery  (xvii.  2).  In  one  of  the 
most  remarkable  passages  of  the  book,  chap.  xvi.  18,  he 
says :  "  0  earth,  cover  not  my  blood," — alluding  to  the 
idea  that  tlie  blood  of  one  unjustly  slain,  like  himself,  will 
not  cover,  but  lies  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  appealing  for 
vindication.  Here  he  anticipates  that  he  shall  have  to  die 
an  unjust  death.  Immediately  after  these  words  he  adds : 
"  Even  now.  He  who  shall  witness  for  me  is  in  heaven,  and 
He  who  shall  testify  to  me  is  on  high."  Now  this  might 
seem  a  revocation  of  his  view  that  he  shall  die  a  martyr's 
death ;  but  it  cannot  be  so  from  wlmt  follows.  A  few 
verses  further  on  he  says  of  his  friends :  '  They  change 
the  night  into  day — i.e.  their  promises  are,  that  the  niglit 
of  affliction  will  soon  give  place  to  a  day  of  restitution. 
To  which  he  answers :  "  If  I  have  said  to  corruption,  Thou 
art  my  father ;  to  the  w^orm.  Thou  art  my  mother ;  where 
then  is  my  hope  ?  It  shall  go  down  to  the  bars  of  Sheol " 
(chap.  xvii.  12).  To  the  same  effect  is  his  desire  in  xix. 
23,  that  his  protestations  of  his  innocence  should  be  graven 
in  the  rock  as  a  testimony  to  all  generations  when  he  is 
no  more. 

And  that  the  new  idea  of  a  restitution  to  prosperity 
does  not  appear  in  chap.  xix.  seems  proved  by  what 
follows.  In  chap,  xxiii.  14  he  says  that  God  will  "  perform, 
or  complete,  the  thing  appointed  for  him  " — i.e.  will  bring 
him  to  death  through  his  malady.  And,  again,  in  his  last 
words,  chap.  xxx.  23,  he  says:  "For  I  know  that  Thou 
wilt  bring  me  to  death."  To  the  former  passage,  xxiii.  14, 
he  adds — "  and  many  such  things  are  with  him."  Dying 
an  unjust  death,  as  Job  now  does,  is  a  common  occurrence 
in  God's   providence.     And   this  idea  appears  in  aU  the 


SEEING  GOD  AFTER  DEATH  401 

clidpters  tluit  follow  llio  xixth.  Job  misses  tlic  Divine 
rectitude  in  tlie  history  of  men, — men  die  in  nfllietion 
though  they  be  righteous,  and  the  wicked  die  in  ]»eace 
though  they  be  sinners,  chaps,  xxiii— xxv.  Hence,  in 
chap.  xxiv.  1,  Job  asks  why  men  do  not  see  God's  judg- 
ment days — His  days  of  assize,  when  He  shows  His 
rectitude  in  governing  the  world.  The  point  of  the 
speeches  after  chap.  xix.  is  that  this  rectitude  of  God  faik 
to  manifest  itself  during  the  whole  life  of  some  men. 
Such  an  argument  could  hardly  have  been  carried  on  if 
Job  had,  in  chap,  xix.,  risen  to  the  assurance  that  God 
would  visit  him  with  prosperity  and  health  in  this  life. 

(3)  This  seeing  of  God,  therefore,  which  Job  anticipates, 
if  it  take  place  in  this  life,  will  not  be  accompanied  by 
restoration  to  health  and  prosperity.  But  could  such  a 
thought  have  occurred  to  Job  ?  Job's  disease  was  to  him 
the  very  seal  of  God's  estrangement  from  him — his  calam- 
ities were  God's  hiding  His  face  from  him,  and  proofs  of 
His  anger.  Hence,  in  chap,  xiv.,  he  contemplates  being 
hidden  in  Sheol  till  God's  wrath  was  past,  and  then  bemg 
recalled  to  a  new  life.  And  it  seems  impossible  that  Job 
could  have  conceived  God  reconciled  to  him  wldle  He 
continued  to  afflict  him  with  his  malady. 

These  arguments  seem  to  point  to  the  conclusion  that 
Job  does  not  anticipate  this  appearance  of  God  on  his 
behalf  in  this  life — that  is,  prior  to  his  death  through  his 
disease.  There  are  many  individual  points  that  go  in  the 
same  direction.  The  word  Goel  naturally  suggests  a 
reference  to  the  vindicator  of  the  deceased.  Admitting 
that  it  would  not  necessarily  do  this  if  it  stood  alone,  it 
remains  that  no  account  of  the  word  ^n,  liveth,  can  be  sug- 
gested which  does  not  imply  an  antithesis  between  Job 
dead  and  his  living  Goel. 

It  is  a  great  mistake  to  regard  any  of  Job's  utterances 
in  any  of  his  speeches  as  extravagances,  or  to  suppose  that 
he  is  allowed  by  the  author  even  to  contradict  himself,  or  to 
rise  to  an  idea  in  one  verse  out  of  all  connection  with  its 
surrounding  context,  or  which  he  dismisses  as  not  further 


492        THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

to  be  pursued.  On  the  contrary,  he  usually  flings  out 
ideas  first,  generally  or  vaguely,  which  he  resumes  and 
pursues  till  he  has  given  them  full  expression.  This  makes 
it  probable  that  the  conception  of  a  new  life  thrown  out 
in  chap.  xiv.  is  not  a  mere  isolated  idea,  like  a  flash  of 
light  swallowed  up  for  ever  in  the  darkness.  It  is  rather 
the  commencement  of  a  progress  which  finds  its  climax  in 
chap.  xix.  This  progress  has  three  stages,  first,  that  of 
'presentiment  in  chap.  xiv. : — "  If  a  man  die,  shall  he  live 
again  ?  Thou  wouldst  call,  and  I  would  answer  Thee  1 " 
Second,  that  of  prayer  in  chaps,  xvi.— xvii. : — "  My  witness 
is  in  heaven,  and  He  who  shall  testify  for  me  is  on  high. 
Mine  eye  droppeth  tears  unto  God  that  He  would  maintain 
the  right  of  a  man  with  God,  and  between  a  man  and  his 
fellow."  These  are  words  which  follow  the  other  words : 
"  0  earth,  cover  not  my  blood."  And,  third,  that  of  assur- 
ance, in  chap.  xix. :  "  I  know  that  my  Eedeemer  liveth—- 
whom  I  shall  see." 

(4)  If,  as  seems  necessary,  we  assume  that  Job  expected 
this  appearance  of  God  on  his  behalf  not  previous  to  his 
death,  we  must  not  attempt  to  fill  up  the  outlines  which 
he  has  drawn.  We  must  take  care  not  to  complete  the 
sketch  out  of  events  that  have  transpired  long  after  his 
day,  or  out  of  beliefs  reposing  on  these  events  that  are 
now  current  among  ourselves.  Tlie  English  Version  has 
done  so  at  the  expense  of  the  original.  The  main  point 
of  Job's  assurance  is,  that  God  will  appear  to  vindicate  him, 
and  that  he  himself  shall  see  Him  in  peace  and  reconcilia- 
tion. It  is  for  this  that  he  faints  with  longing.  This  is 
the  point  that  absorbs  his  attention.  And,  probably,  this 
so  absorbed  his  imagination  that  the  surroundings  of  the 
event  were  hardly  thought  of.  These  surroundings  hardly 
form  a  positive  part  of  his  assurance  at  all.  We  must 
lay  no  stress  on  them  as  parts  of  his  conception  or  vision. 
We  should  be  wrong  to  say  that  Job  contemplates  a  purely 
spiritual  vision  of  God.  And  we  should  be  wrong  to  say 
that  he  contemplates  being  invested  with  a  new  l3ody  when 
he  sees  God.      He  was  a  living  man  when   he  projected 


NATURE    OF    JOBS    VISION    OF    GOD  498 

before  his  own  mind  lliis  i^lorious  vision  ;  and  ]H()l)al)ly  he 
fancies  himself  to  see  it,  wlicu  it  is  realised,  as  a  living- 
man.  This  seems  likely,  because  lie  tln-eatens  his  friends 
with  God's  anger  when  He  appears.  But  he  had  not  in 
his  mind  at  the  time  any  thought  of  the  necessary  pre- 
liminaries —  such  as  being  invested  with  a  new  body. 
He  sees  the  coming  appearance  of  God,  and  he  sees 
himself  present  with  it,  and  he  fancies  himself  a  living 
man. 

It  is  a  fundamental  thought,  then,  in  Job's  mind,  that 
God's  anger  will  pursue  him  to  the  grave.  Eestoration  in 
this  life  is  an  illusion,  a  false  issue,  which  the  friends  hold 
up  before  him.  But  he  knows  better.  The  certainty 
which  he  expresses  is  a  certainty  which  concerns  him  after 
death — without  his  flesh  he  shall  see  God.  He  shall  see 
Him  ;  and  his  eyes,  not  another's,  behold  Him.  Other  eyes 
may  see  Him  too, — but  his  shall.  Job's  sorrow  was  that 
God  was  unseen,  that  He  eluded  his  search — "  Oh  that  I 
knew  where  I  might  find  Him."  But  this  hiding  of  Himself 
shall  not  always  continue  ;  and  the  thought  of  seeing  Him 
overcomes  him,  so  that  he  cries  out :  "  My  reins  faint  within 
me." 

Now  it  is  necessary  to  consider  what  Job  was, — in  his 
righteousness ;  this  is  the  very  basis  of  all, — a  just  man, 
fearing  God  and  eschewing  evil.  A  man  in  union  with  God 
— living  by  faith  on  God.  The  writer  puts  him  outside 
of  the  Israelitish  community ;  he  is  not  one  of  the  cove- 
nant people.  He  has  not  much  about  him  to  fall  back  upon, 
no  public  life  embodying  God's  relations  to  men,  no  great 
society  of  believers  on  whose  experience  to  lean  and  draw 
support  from,  nothing  but  his  own  history — his  consciousness. 
For,  whatever  supports  one  may  have  in  what  is  without, 
in  ordinances  and  a  church  life  and  a  visible  organisation, 
as  proofs  to  him  that  there  is  a  God — a  God  of  grace,  and 
that  He  has  revealed  Himself  to  men,  and  is  dwelling 
among  them  in  very  truth, — all  these  things  but  help  to 
form  his  consciousness — are  but  outer  food  to  be  turned  into 
personal  nourishment,  and  must  be  so  used ;  and  one's  own 


494   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

history  and  cx])crioncc  may  be  in  extreme  circmjistances 
enough,  just  as  it  is  in  all  cases  necessary. 

Further,  looking  merely  at  the  things  here  said,  they 
are  very  singular,  they  are  all  concrete  things,  and  not 
general ;  but  if  turned  into  generals,  we  hardly  yet  know 
more.  First,  there  is  One  who  upholds  the  cause  of  men, 
who  shall  yet  stand  upon  the  earth  and  declare  of  everyone 
according  to  his  deeds.  There  is  a  Eedeemer,  a  righter  of 
men  from  the  wrongs  and  sorrows  of  the  world  and  the 
malice  of  Satan.  This  shall  be  public,  before  the  eyes  of 
all.  What  this  man  reaches  through  his  troubles,  and 
affirms  of  his  own  case,  must  be  true  of  all.  Second,  there 
shall  be  to  the  righteous  a  complete  reunion  with  God. 
Estrangements,  whether  explicable  or  no,  shall  be  recon- 
ciled, and  the  eye  of  the  just  shall  see  God. 

The  question  must  be  put, — Does  Job  contemplate  the 
vindication  of  himself  before  men  and  his  own  vision  of 
God  as  contemporaneous  ?  There  seems  no  certain  answer 
to  be  returned  to  this  question.  In  the  Old  Testament  it 
is  ideas  and  things  that  appear,  not  times  and  seasons.  It 
is  fragments,  not  wholes.  Here,  two  things  are  certainly 
affirmed  with  irrefragable  certainty :  A  public  confession 
by  God  of  the  just  before  the  world,  and  a  union  of  the 
just  with  Himself  in  blessed  vision.  That  the  things  are 
contemporaneous  may  not  be  here  taught.  Nor  can  we 
conclude  with  certainty  in  what  condition  the  sufferer 
thought  himself  to  be  when  seeing  his  Eedeemer.  On  the 
one  hand,  the  Vindicator  shall  rise  upon  the  dust — and  even 
without  his  flesh  Job  shall  see  Him.  This  implies  that  not 
in  this  life  or  with  this  body  he  shall  behold  Him.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  goel  and  afterman  stands  upon  the 
earth,  and  there  might  be  a  return  here  to  the  bold 
anticipation  of  the  xivth  chapter.  If  there  is  not,  then 
it  is  left  to  us  to  put  the  two  anticipations  together  and 
make  a  whole  out  of  them. 

Once  more,  if  we  conceive  Job's  case  in  its  true 
breadth — who,  at  bottom,  was  his  accuser,  the  Satan ;  who 
ultimately  it  is  that,  as  Judge  and  Vindicator,  shall  stand 


TRADITIONAL    INTERPRETATION  495 

upon  the  earth,  He  to  whom  all  judgment  is  committed, 
being  the  Son  of  Man ;  what  eyes  it  is  that  are  needful  to 
see  Him  who  came  in  the  llesh,  even  eyes  of  flesli,  when  to 
those  who  look  for  Him,  He  shall  come  the  second  time,  for 
salvation — we  shall  have  the  elements  for  a  construction 
greater  than  that  yet  reared  in  the  Old  Testament.  In 
treating  the  Old  Testament  scientifically,  we  show  the 
materials  of  the  fabric  not  yet  reared;  in  treating  it 
practically,  we  may  even  exhibit  the  fabric  fully  reared. 

The  vision  of  his  meeting  God  in  peace  so  absorbed  Job's 
mind,  that  the  preliminaries  which  would  occur  to  a  mind  in 
a  calmer  condition,  and  which  immediately  occur  to  us,  were 
not  present  to  his  thoughts.  Yet  I  do  not  know  but  that  to 
Job's  mind  all  the  religious  essentials  were  present  which 
we  associate  with  the  future  life.  And  though  the  ancient 
and  traditional  interpretation  of  the  passage  was  in  many 
respects  exegetically  false,  and  imposed  on  Job's  mind  our 
more  particular  conceptions,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  seized 
the  true  elements  of  Job's  situation  in  a  manner  truer  to 
the  reality  than  can  be  said  of  some  modern  expositions. 

The  situation  of  Job  differed  from  that  of  the  Psalmists 
whose  w^ords  we  have  in  Pss.  xvi.,  xlix.,  and  Ixxiii.     These 
men  were,  when  they  spoke,  in  fellowship  with  God.     What 
they  demand  is  the  continuance  of  it.      But  Job  had  lost 
it.      This  saint  has  a  double  difficulty  to  overcome.     His 
invincible  faith  in  God's  relation  to  him  at  heart,  in  spite 
of  a  darkness  which  will  last  all  this  life,  enables  him  to  ) 
overcome  it,  and  to  rise  to  the  assurance  that  this  estrange-  ( 
ment  of  God  shall  be  removed,  and  that  he  shall  see  Him  \ 
in  peace.     This  is  a  very  profound  faith. 

10. 'The  Hope  of  an  After -TAfe  in  relation  to  the  ideas 
of  TAfe  and  Death. 

The  Old  Testament  view  of  Immortality  is  a  very 
large  one.  It  embraces  a  variety  of  eleuHnits  which  re- 
quire careful  study,  and  wOiich  may  seem  at  first  ol)SCUi'e. 
It  may  be  best  understood  if  we  look  at  these  three  points 


496   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

in  particular : — first,  tlie  Old  Testament  view  of  death ; 
\  second,  the  Old  Testament  view  of  life ;  and,  third,  the 
reconciliation  of  the  two — or  the  way  in  which  life  over- 
comes death.  It  might  seem  to  be  more  natural  to  speak 
lirst  of  life,  but  it  may  conduce  to  clearness  if  the  question 
of  death  be  put  first. 

On  such  questions  as  life,  death,  the  hody  and  the  soid^ 
there  are  several  witnesses  who  offer  us  their  testimony. 
Tlierc  is  science ;  there  is  speculation,  ancient  and  modern ; 
and  there  is  Scripture.  We  naturally  compare  their  testi- 
monies. This  is  inevitable.  And  on  comparing  them,  or 
any  two  of  them,  say  science  and  Scripture,  it  may  turn 
out  that  they  do  not  agree.  But  there  is  an  important 
preliminary  question  regarding  the  witnesses — -Are  tliey 
witnesses  of  the  same  kind  ?  The  question  is  not  whether 
the  one  is  more  or  less  credible  than  the  other,  but  whether 
they  really  be  witnesses  that  speak  to  the  same  things; 
wliether,  though  they  all  speak  about  the  world  and  man 
and  the  body  and  soul,  they  do  not  speak  of  these  looking 
at  them  from  quite  different  points  of  view.  If  the  latter  is 
the  case,  these  witnesses,  though  giving  different  testimonies 
regarding  these  subjects,  may  not  be  in  conflict. 

What  students  of  the  Old  Testament  have  rather  to 
complain  of  is,  that  its  testimony  on  all  matters  which  are 
also  matters  of  science  is  virtually  suppressed,  through  the 
assumption  that  it  is  a  witness  of  the  same  kind  with 
the  scientific  witnesses,  and  that  its  testimony  moves  in 
the  same  plane.  Hence  the  trepidation  lest  there  should 
be  contradiction,  and  the  rash  haste  to  effect  a  harmony. 
The  maxim  tliat  the  Bible  and  nature  having  the  same 
Autlior  cannot  contradict  one  another,  in  itself  a  right 
maxim,  may  become  mischievous  if  we  set  out  with  unjust 
notions  of  the  two,  or  assume  that  tlie  Bible  and  science 
deliver  testimony  within  the  same  sphere.  The  result  is 
to  lead  to  a  comparison  of  science  as  the  interpreter  of 
nature  with  Scripture,  to  attempts  at  harmony,  to  explana- 
tions sometimes  forced  ;  in  the  course  of  which  it  happens 
either  that  scientific  results  are  denied,  or  said  to  be  so 


VIEW    OF    DEATH  497 

immature  that  nothing  can  be  founded  on  them,  or  else 
such  a  haze  is  thrown  around  Scripture  that  practically 
all  meaning  is  denied  to  it.  The  latter  is  usually  the 
case  ;  for  in  tliis  conflict  tlieology  generally  suilers  a  defeat, 
and  the  result  is  scarcely  less  disastrous  to  Scrii)ture  than 
the  open  ascription  of  error  to  it.  For  while  its  authority 
may  be  formally  upheld,  it  is  made  to  be  so  obscure 
that  on  a  large  class  of  subjects  it  cannot  be  taken  into 
any  practical  account. 

Now,  unquestionably  science  and  Scripture  look  at  all 
the  things  on  wOiich  they  speak  in  common  from  dilTerent 
points  of  view.  Science  busies  itself,  whether  it  speak  of 
tlie  world  or  of  man,  with  a  physical  constitution  under 
physical  law.  This  is  an  idea  unknown  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. In  its  view  the  w\)rld  is  a  moral  constitution,  all 
tlie  phenomena  of  which  illustrate  moral  law  and  subserve 
moral  ends.  Now  it  is  of  great  importance  to  keep  this 
general  distinction  before  our  minds.  It  would  be  of  great 
utility  to  go  through  Scripture  under  the  guidance  of  this 
general  principle  which  pervades  it,  collecting  all  that  it 
says  about  the  w^orld  or  man,  before  bringing  its  testimony 
into  any  comparison  with  what  science  says.  We  might 
find  that  though  the  testimonies  were  very  different,  yet 
Scripture  in  making  moral  affirmations  regarding  the 
universe  did  not  contradict  science  in  making  physical 
affirmations.  And  we  should  always  be  justified  in  saying 
of  any  apparently  physical  affirmations  which  Scripture 
makes,  that  to  make  such  affirmations  is  not  its  direct 
object.  Such  physical  statements  are  only  the  vehicle  or 
indirect  means  of  making  moral  statements. 

(1)  As  to  death.  Tlie  Old  Testament  means  by  tliat 
what  we  ourselves  mean  when  we  use  the  word.  It  is  tlie 
plienomenon  wliich  we  observe, and  which  we  call  dying.  Ihit 
in  the  Old  Testament  this,  so  to  s])eak,  contains  two  things, 
death  itself  or  dying,  and  tlie  state  of  the  dead.  Now,  on 
tlie  one  hand,  all  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  indicate  the 
prevalence  of  the  view  that  at  deatli  the  person  who  dies 
is  not  annihilated.  The  person  who  is  dead  has  not  ceased 
32 


498   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

to  exist,  though  he  has  ceased  to  live.  But,  on  the  other 
hand,  death  is  not  merely  the  separation  of  body  and  soul, 
the  body  falliniji;  into  decay  and  the  soul  continuing  to 
live.  The  Old  Testament  does  not  direct  its  attention  to 
tlie  body  or  the  soul  so  much  as  to  the  person,  and  the  person 
who  dies  remains  dead.  Deatli  paralyses  the  life  of  tlie 
person.  The  person  who  has  died  continues  dead.  He 
descends  into  the  place  where  all  dead  persons  are  con- 
gregated, called  in  the  Old  Testament  Shcol,  and  in  the 
New  Testament  Hades.  The  dead  person  is  there  not  non- 
existent, but  dead,  and  all  the  consequences  which  we 
observe  to  follow  death  here  pursue  him  there, — he  is 
cut  off  from  all  fellow  .^hip  with  the  living,  whether  the 
living  be  man  or  God. 

Of  course,  the  Hebrew  view  of  death  is  not  materialistic. 
Just  as  in  the  history  of  creation  God  formed  man  out 
of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his  nostrils 
the  breath  of  life,  just  as  the  body  is  represented  as  com- 
plete while  not  yet  inhabited  by  the  soul,  which  was  drawn 
from  elsewhere  and  entered  the  body  ;  so  the  soul  leaves  the 
body  in  death,  but  does  not  become  extinct.  Yet  the  Old 
Testament  does  not  call  that  which  descends  into  Sheol,  the 
place  of  the  dead,  either  soul  or  spirit  It  is  the  deceased 
person.  And  this  person,  though  dead,  was  to  such  an 
extent  still  existent,  that  he  was  supposed  capable  of  being 
evoked  by  the  necromancer,  as  in  the  case  of  Samuel.  The 
person  still  subsisted,  though  dead. 

Again,  the  Hebrew  view  is  far  from  being  akin 
to  the  philosophic  theory,  which  held  the  body  to  be 
the  spirit's  prison-house,  from  which  when  set  at  liberty 
the  spirit  rejoiced  in  a  fuller  life,  and  could  expand  its 
faculties  to  a  greater  exercise  of  power  than  was  possi))le 
to  it  when  cramped  in  the  narrow  material  cell.  Such 
a  view  of  the  body  is  far  from  being  Scriptural.  But, 
on  the  other  hand,  we  must  equally  dismiss  from  our 
minds  ideas  which  Christianity  has  made  familiar  to  us, — 
ideas  of  a  culmination  of  the  spirit  at  death  into  moral  per- 
fection, and  the  drifting  away  of  all  clouds  which  obscure 


STATE   OF   THE    DEAD  499 

tlic  face  of  God  to  it  licre  on  eaitli.  TJiis  view  is  tlio  oml, 
the  result,  of  the  development  and  the  sti'ug_u;lcs  of  fnith 
which  we  observe  in  the  Old  Testament.  But  it  must  not 
be  assumed  at  the  beginning  of  them. 

Dismissing,  then,  all  these  ideas  from  our  mind,  we 
liave  to  adhere  to  the  representations  in  the  Old  Testament. 
And  the  point  that  requires  to  be  kept  firm  hold  of  is, 
that  the  person  who  dies  remains  dead,  not  merely  in  the 
sense  that  he  does  not  live  on  earth,  but  in  every  sense ;  '^ 
life  is  paralysed  in  whatever  element  of  oul*  being  it  may 
be  supposed  to  reside.  The  state  of  the  dead  is  a  con- 
tinuance, a  prolongation  of  death.  A  few  passages  may 
be  cited  to  illustrate  what  was  thought  of  the  state  of 
those  dead. 

{a)  There  are  certain  strong  expressions  used  at  times 
in  the  Old  Testament  regarding  death,  from  which  it  might 
be  inferred,  indeed,  that  it  was  believed  that  the  existence 
of  the  person  came  to  an  end  absolutely,  e.g.  (Ps.  cxlvi.  4) : 
"  His  breath  goeth  forth,  he  returneth  to  his  earth ;  in  that 
very  day  his  thoughts  perish "  (Ps.  cxlvi.  4) ;  "0  spare 
me,  that  I  may  recover  strength,  before  I  go  hence,  and 
be  no  more"  (Ps.  xxxix.  14);  "Why  dost  thou  not  pardon 
my  transgression  ?  for  now  shall  I  sleep  in  the  dust ;  and 
thou  shalt  seek  me  earnestly,  but  I  shall  not  be "  (Job 
vii.  21).  "For  a  tree  hath  hope,  if  it  be  cut  down,  that  it 
will  sprout  again ;  but  man  dieth,  and  w^asteth  away :  man 
giveth  up  the  ghost,  and  where  is  he  ?  Man  lieth  down, 
and  riseth  not ;  till  the  heavens  be  no  more,  they  sliall  not 
awake,  nor  be  raised  out  of  their  sleep "  (Job  xiv.  7). 
But  these  are  merely  the  strong  expressions  of  despondency 
and  regret  over  a  life  soon  ended  here,  and  that  never 
returns  to  be  lived  on  earth  again.  The  very  name  and  con- 
ception of  Sheol,  the  })lace  of  tlie  dead,  is  sufficient  answer 
to  the  first  impression  that  they  produce.  The  word  Sheol, 
as  has  been  said,  is  of  uncertain  meaning  ;  but  it  probably  is 
connected  witli  tlie  root  that  signifies  to  (jaiic  or  yawn,  and 
may  mean  a  chasm  or  abyss,  and  tlius  diller  little  in  mean- 
iiiLi;  from  our  own  word   lldl,  coiniected  witJi   the  word  to 


500        THE   THKOLOGY   OF   THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

be  hollovi  A  word  often  used  in  parallelism  with  it  is  xtit, 
and  in  the  New  Testament  abyss.  Tliis  place,  wliere  dead 
persons  are  assembled,  is  represented  as  the  opposite  of  this 
upper  world  of  light  and  life ;  it  is  spoken  of  as  deep  down 
in  the  earth  :  "  Those  that  seek  my  soul,  to  destroy  it,  shall 
go  down  into  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth  "  (Ps.  Ixiii.  9) ; 
or  it  is  under  the  earth,  "  the  shades  tremble  underneath 
tlie  waters"  (Job  xxvi.  5).  Corresponding  to  this  it  is 
a  land  of  darkness,  as  Job  says :  "  A  land  of  darkness,  as 
darkness  itself ;  without  any  order,  and  where  the  light  is 
as  darkness"  (x.  22). 

Of  course  there  is  no  formal  topography  to  be  sought  for 
Sheol.  It  is  in  great  measure  the  creation  of  the  imagination, 
deep  down  under  the  earth,  or  under  the  waters  of  the  seas. 
It  is  the  abode  of  departed  persons,  the  place  appointed  for 
all  living.  The  generations  of  one's  forefathers  are  there,  and 
he  who  dies  is  '  gathered  unto  his  fathers.'  The  tribal  divi- 
sions of  one's  nation  are  there,  and  the  dead  is  gathered 
unto  his  people.  Separated  from  them  here,  he  is  united 
to  them  there;  and  if  even  his  own  descendants  had  died 
before  him,  they  are  there,  and  he  goes  down,  as  Jacob  to  his 
son,  to  Sheol  mourning.  None  can  hope  to  escape  entering 
among  these  dead  personalities :  "  What  man  is  he  that 
liveth,  and  shall  not  see  death ;  that  shall  deliver  his  soul 
from  the  hand  of  Sheol  ? "  (Ps.  Ixxxix.  48). 

(b)  We  have  seen  that,  as  death  consists  in  the 
withdrawal  by  God  of  His  spirit  of  life,  and  as  this 
(spirit  is  the  source  of  energy  and  vital  force,  the  person- 
ality in  death  is  left  feeble.  All  that  belongs  to  life  ceases 
except  bare  subsistence.  Hence  Sheol  is  called  Abaddon, 
*  perishing  ' ;  it  is  called  cessation.  The  persons  there  are  still 
and  silent  as  in  sleep.  They  are  called  shades.  The 
condition  is  called  '  silence ' :  "  unless  the  Lord  had  been 
my  help,  my  soul  had  dwelt  in  silence"  (Ps.  xciv.  17).  It 
is  the  land  of  forgetfulness :  "  the  living  know  that  they 
must  die  :  but  the  dead  know  not  anything.  Also  their  love, 
and  their  hatred,  and  tlieir  envy,  is  now  perished  "  (Eccles. 
ix.   5) ;   "  Art  tliou  become  weak  as  one  of   us  ? "   is  the 


SHEOL    AND    MORAL    DISTINCTIONS  501 

saliiiaiion  with  wliicli  tlic  ini^Lclity  king  of  Babylon  is 
greeted  by  tlio  sliades.  Yet  this  passage  in  Isa.  xiv.  re- 
presents tlie  dead  as  liaving  a  kind  of  consciousness  of 
tlieniselves  and  others,  a  menioiy  of  the  past,  and  as 
enjoying  a  kind  of  snl)sistence,  wliich,  though  not  life,  is 
a  dim  retiection  and  sluidow  of  life  npon  the  cartli.  The 
social  distinctions  that  prevail  on  earth  are  continued  in 
Sheol.  Shadowy  kings  sit  upon  imperceptible  thrones, 
from  which  they  are  stirred  with  a  flicker  of  interest 
and  emotion  to  greet  any  distinguished  new  arrival.  Ee- 
spectable  circumcised  persons  refuse  to  mingle  with  the 
uncircumcised. 

But  all  this,  it  can  be  readily  seen,  is  partly  poetry  and 
partly  effort  of  the  imagination.  It  is  not  doctrine.  It  is 
the  product  of  the  imagination  operating  on  the  circumstances 
connected  with  death.  The  grave  suggests  a  deep  cavernous 
receptacle  as  the  place  of  the  dead.  The  sleep  of  death  causes 
them  to  deem  it  a  land  of  stillness  and  silence.  The  flaccid, 
powerless  corpse  makes  them  think  of  the  person  as  feeble, 
without  energy  or  power.  Only  this  amount  of  certainty 
seems  deducible,  that  the  dead  persons  still  in  some  way 
subsisted  Death  puts  an  end  to  the  existence  of  no 
person. 

(c)  My  impression  is,  as  has  been  stated,  that  so  far  as 
the  Old  Testament  writings  are  concerned,  there  appears 
nowhere  any  distinction  between  good  and  evil  in  this 
place  of  the  dead.  Sheol  is  no  place  of  punishment  itself 
nor  of  reward.  Neither  is  it  divided  into  any  distinct, 
retributive  compartments.  The  state  there  is  not  blessed- 
ness nor  misery.  It  is  subsistence  simply.  There  is  a 
distinction  drawn  in  the  Old  Testament  between  the 
righteous  and  the  wicked.  But  it  is  not  a  distinction  in 
regard  to  their  condition  in  Sheol.  It  is  a  distinction 
anterior  to  Sheol, — a  distinction  according  to  which  the 
righteous  do  not  fall  into  Sheol  at  all,  as  will  appear 
immediately. 

(d)  There  is  one  more  p(»int  in  regard  to  the  dead  that 
is  of  importance.      Connection  with   the  world   of   life  is 


502        THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

coinplotcly  broken.  The  dead  man  cannot  return  to  earth, 
nor  does  he  know  anything  of  the  things  of  earth ;  even  the 
fate,  happy  or  miserable,  of  those  he  was  most  bound  up 
witli,  is  unknown  to  him :  "  His  sons  come  to  lionour,  and 
lie  knowctli  it  not ;  tlicy  are  brought  low,  and  he  per- 
ceiveth  it  not  of  them"  (Job  xiv.  21).  Yet,  with  the 
strong  belief  in  the  existence  of  the  personalities  in  Sheol, 
there  was  not  unnaturally  a  popular  superstition  that  they 
could  be  reached,  and  that  they  could  give  counsel  to  the 
living.  The  belief  probably  was  not  that  the  dead  must 
have  more  knowledge  than  the  living,  from  tlie  mere  fact 
of  their  having  passed  into  another  state.  It  was  not 
thought  that  there  must  be  wisdom  with  great  Death. 
More  likely  the  dead  to  whom  recourse  was  had  were 
persons  who  were  eminent  when  living,  such  as  prophets 
or  great  ancestors,  and  who  might  still  be  supposed  capable 
of  giving  counsel  or  light  to  the  living  in  their .  perplexity. 
This  appears  to  be  the  meaning  of  Saul's  desire  to  consult 
Samuel.  The  prophet  Isaiah,  however,  ridicules  the  idea : 
"  Should  not  a  people  seek  unto  their  God  ?  should  they 
seek  for  the  Living  unto  the  dead?"  (viii.  19).  But  the 
main  point  is  that  the  relation  between  the  deceased  person 
and  God  was  held  to  be  altogether  severed.  This  was  what 
gave  death  its  significance  to  the  religious  mind,  and  caused 
such  a  revulsion  against  it,  culminating  in  such  protests 
as  that  in  Ps.  xvi. 

Now  these  points  regarding  death  and  the  state  of  the 
dead  perhaps  are  hardly  to  be  called  Scripture  teaching ; 
they  are  rather  the  conceptions  lying  in  the  popular  mind 
which  Scripture  presupposes,  and  wliich  are  made  the 
foundation  on  which  what  may  more  fairly  be  called 
Scripture  teaching  is  reared.  But  all  kinds  of  men  are 
represented  in  Scripture  as  giving  expression  to  these 
sentiments,  the  pious  as  well  as  others.  They  are  elements 
of  the  national  mind.  They  form,  in  fact,  the  convictions 
against  which  tlie  faitli  of  the  ])ious  struggles ;  and  in  this 
struggle  ^^'llly  lies  the  contri))ution  made  to  the  doctrine  of 
immortality  in  the  Old  Testament.     How  general  these  con- 


VIEW    OF    LIFE  503 

victioiis  n.vo  mny  ho  soon  from  Pss.  vi.,  xxx.,  and  TTo/okiali's 
pniyer,  Isa.  xxwiii.  In  Llio  lirsl  it,  is  sai<l,"  Ilolnrn,  ()  Loid, 
deliver  my  soul  :  for  in  doaXh  lliore  is  no  reniond trance  of 
Thee ;  in  Sbeol  who  sliall  give  Thee  thanks  ? "  In  tlie 
second,  "  I  cried  unto  tlie  Lord,  What  profit  is  tliore  in 
my  blood,  when  I  go  down  to  tlie  pit  ?  Sliall  the  dust  praise 
Thee  ?  shall  it  declare  Thy  truth  ? "  And  in  the  last, 
"  For  Sheol  cannot  praise  Thee,  death  cannot  celebrate 
Thee :  they  that  go  down  to  the  pit  cannot  hope  for  Thy 
truth."  And  the  plaintive  singer  in  Ps.  xxxix.  pleads,  as 
Job  often  does,  for  an  extension  of  his  earthly  life  on  this 
ground :  "  Hold  not  Thy  peace  at  my  tears :  for  I  am  a 
stranger  with  Thee,  and  a  sojourner,"  the  meaning  being, 
as  has  been  noticed,  nearly  the  opposite  of  what  the 
Christian  mind  would  read  into  the  words.  To  the  Old 
Testament  saint  this  life  on  earth  was  a  brief  but  happy 
visit  paid  to  the  Lord ;  but  death  summoned  the  visitor 
away,  and  it  came  to  an  end.  This  is  always  the  significant 
element  in  the  popular  view  of  death,  that  it  severed  the 
relation  between  the  person  and  God. 

2.  As  to  Life. — As  by  death,  so  by  life  the  Old 
Testament  means  what  we  mean  by  it.  -  It  starts  from  the 
idea  not  of  the  soul,  but  of  the  person.  'Life'  is  wdiat 
we  so  call ;  it  is  the  existence  of  the  complete  personality, 
in  its  unity,  body  and  soul.  Man  was  made  a  living 
person,  such  as  any  one  of  us  is,  and  the  maintenance 
of  this  condition  is  life.  But  in  the  Old  Testament 
there  is  always  an  additional  element.  What  might  be 
called  the  centre  of  gravity  of  life  is  not  physical,  but 
moral  or  religious.  Man  was  created  a  living  pers(jn, 
in  a  particular  relation  to  God ;  and  this  relation  to 
God  would  have  maintained  him  in  the  condition  of  a 
living  person.  The  bond  of  unity  in  the  elements  of 
man's  nature  is  his  moral  relation  to  God.  So  that  life, 
as  the  Old  Testament  uses  the  term,  is  what  we  name  life, 
with  the  addition  of  the  fellowship  of  God.  This  was  the 
condition  of  the  original  man — he  was  a  living  person. 
This  is  life,  and  the  continuance  of  it  is  immortality.     The 


504   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

idea  of  iiuinortality  which  Uie  Old  Testament  teaches,  or  is 
engaged  with,  is  not  a  doctrine  of  the  suhsistence  merely 
of  the  immaterial  part  of  man's  heing.  It  is  a  doctrine,  first, 
of  the  subsistence  of  the  whole  of  man's  being,  body  and 
soul ;  and,  secondly,  not  of  the  subsistence  of  this  merely, 
but  its  subsistence  in  the  fellowship  of  God.  The  mere 
subsistence  of  the  dead  person  was  never  questioned. 
Scripture  has  no  need  to  affirm  it,  but  presupposes  it. 
What  it  is  occupied  with  is  a  religious  immortality,  an 
immortality  which  shall  preserve  and  prolong  that  life 
with  God  actually  enjoyed  by  the  living  saints  here  upon 
the  earth. 

The  early  chapters  of  Genesis  illustrate  what  is  meant 
by  life  and  immortality.  They  tell  us  that  Adam  was 
made  a  living  person, — a  person  such  as  we  are,  and  living 
as  any  of  us  lives.  This  man  lives  in  fellowship  with  God. 
The  passage,  from  its  way  of  speaking,  appears  to  assume 
that  life  is  to  continue ;  for  a  warning  is  given  that  it  will 
cease  in  certain  events.  Apart  from  these  events  it  is 
destined  to  flow  on.  The  question  is  not  raised  as  to  how 
long  it  will  flow  on  ;  but  no  cessation  is  contemplated,  except 
in  the  case  of  a  particular  occurrence.  The  man  who  lives 
is  not  a  body  nor  a  soul,  but  a  complete  person.  No 
question  is  raised  whether  the  soul  be  immortal  from  its 
nature,  nor  whether  the  body  be  from  its  nature  liable  to 
dissolution.  The  passage  says  nothing  of  the  body  or 
the  soul,  it  speaks  of  the  person,  who  lives  as  we  under- 
stand life  to  be.  This  is  life  in  the  primary  condition 
of  man,  in  the  fellowship  of  God,  and  this  life  has  an  inde- 
finite flow  onward,  provided  a  certain  occurrence  do  not 
intervene.  AVhen  we  pass  across  the  record  of  many 
generations,  and  come  to  the  story  of  the  Patriarchal  and 
Mosaic  ages,  we  perceive  the  same  conceptions  prevailing. 
There  is  no  allusion  in  the  literature  of  the  periods  to  a 
future  life  of  reward ;  yet  life  and  death  are  set  before 
Israel.  What  is  this  life  that  is  spoken  of  ?  It  is  Life  as 
we  behold  it  in  the  case  of  any  living  man,  but  always  with 
an  additional  element.     It  lay  in  God's  favour.     External 


NORMAL    CONDITION   OF    MAN  505 

goods  wore  good,  when  CJod's  presence  and  favour  were  in 
them.      Tliey   were    seals   to    tlie    ]»i()us   Israelite   of  (Jod's 
good  pleasure  witli  him.      In  the  joyousness  of  existence , 
and  in  the  cler  •  light  of  God's  favour  the  Old  Testament  | 
saint  in  his  full  bodily  existence   upon   the   eartli,  in   the 
language  of  Scripture,  had  life. 

It  has  always  been  surprising  to  readers  of  the  Old 
Testament  that  there  is  so  little  reference  in  it — in  many 
parts  of  it  no  reference  at  all — to  what  we  call  a  future 
life.  And  there  is,  no  donbt,  some  difficulty  in  conceiv- 
ing the  modes  of  thinking  that  prevailed  in  Israel.  In 
point  of  fact,  our  modes  of  thinking  and  theirs  form  two 
extremes.  We  have  been  taught  by  many  things  to  feel 
that  a  true  or  perfect  religious  life  with  God  cannot  be 
lived  upon  the  earth ;  that  only  in  another  sphere  can  true 
fellowship  with  Him  be  maintained.  It  is  possible  that 
what  is  true  in  this  idea  may  have  been  pursued  to  an 
extreme,  to  the  undue  depreciation  of  this  life,  and  the 
undue  limitation  of  its  possibilities  in  the  way  of  living 
unto  God.  The  Hebrew  stood  at  the  other  pole.  This 
life  seemed  to  him  the  normal  condition  of  man.  Life 
with  God  was  possible  here — was  indeed  life.  It  was  this 
that  gave  life  its  joy — "  The  Lord  is  the  portion  of  mine 
inheritance  and  my  cup"  (Ps.  xvi.  5).  It  was  this  pos- 
session of  Jehovah  that  made  life  to  the  pious  mind  of  old. 
The  Hebrew  saint  did  not  think  of  tlie  future,  because 
he  had  in  the  present  all  that  could  ever  be  received. 
Hence  it  was  only  on  occasions  when  the  presence  of  God 
was  like  to  be  withdrawn  or  lost,  as  when  death  threatened, 
that  the  question  of  a  future  life  rose  before  the  mind.  So 
that  when  w^e  feel  surprise  at  the  small  reference  to  future 
immortality  in  the  Old  Testament,  we  must  take  care 
that  we  do  not  pass  a  mistaken  judgment  on  the  Old 
Testament  saints,  and  suppose  that  the  reason  why  they 
thought  and  spoke  so  little  of  the  future  was  that  they 
were  entirely  occupied  and  satisfied  with  the  material  joys 
of  this  earthly  life. 

The  true  state  of  tlie  case  is  very  much  the  opposite 


50 G        THE    THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

of  this.  The  Hebrew  saint  called  that  "  life "  which 
made  the  existence  of  the  complete  person  in  all  his 
parts,  l)ody  and  sonl.  Anything  else  was  not  life,  but 
death.  And  he  had  this  life  upon  the  earth,  and  God's 
presence  with  him  filled  it  with  joy ;  he  had  life  in  its 
perfect  meaning.  Therefore  our  surprise,  if  legitimate, 
must  be  directed  to  these  two  points,  namely :  How  the 
Old  Testament  saint  could  fancy  a  life  on  earth,  with  all 
its  imperfections,  to  be  a  satisfying  life  with  God ;  and, 
secondly,  How  he  was  so  little  given  to  reflection,  that  the 
thought  of  death,  so  inevitable  to  us,  did  not  oftener  intrude 
and  disturb  his  joy,  and  force  him  to  contemplate  the 
future.  Now,  we  must  not  forget  in  what  age  of  the 
world  we  live,  and  in  what  age  the  Old  Testament  saints 
lived.  There  lies  behind  us  all  the  speculation  of  mankind 
upon  death ;  the  history  of  Christ  and  all  the  light  cast 
by  Christianity.  The  Old  Testament  saint  stood  before  all 
these  things ;  he  was  only  sowing  seeds  here  and  there,  of 
which  we  now  reap  the  harvest.  But,  in  reference  to  the 
first  question,  it  may  perhaps  be  admitted  that  a  deeper 
sense  of  the  evils  which  pervade  this  world,  the  impedi- 
ments which  the  evil  of  mankind  lays  in  the  way  of  the 
principles  of  tlie  Divine  government — in  a  word,  a  deeper 
sense  of  the  sinfulness  of  mankind  and  of  the  holiness  of 
God,  might  have  suggested  tlie  necessity  of  another  spliere 
where  evil  should  be  eliminated  and  the  fellowship  of  men 
with  God  be  complete.     / 

And  in  point  of  fact  we  perceive  this  thought  in  a 
certain  form  in  Job,  w^ho,  baffled  before  the  complexities 
of  God's  providence,  is  compelled  to  look  to  the  future, 
and  enabled  to  assure  himself  that  beyond  this  life  he 
will  see  God's  justice  vindicated.  But  in  earlier  times 
there  was  a  strong  feeling  of  the  unity  of  God  and 
His  universal  efficiency  in  the  rule  of  all  things ;  and  this 
carried  with  it  also  the  feeling  of  the  unity  of  the  world, 
which  was  the  sphere  of  His  rule,  and  no  distinction 
was  drawn  between  this  world  and  another.  There  was 
one  world,  as  there  was  one  God  ruling  everywhera     His 


IMMINENCE  OF  THE  LORD's  COMING      507 

efficiency  and  will  porv.'ided  the  nniverse ;  no  chan^^c  of 
place  could  make  any  aUera,tion.  Hence  ilie  idcji,  now 
familiar  fco  us,  of  heaven  as  an  abode  of  tlie  rij^hteous,  had 
not  yet  been  reached.  That  which  makes  the  essence  of 
our  idea  of  heaven,  the  presence  of  God,  they  had  as  nmch 
as  we.      But  this  presence  was  enjoyed  on  earth. 

In  the  perfect  state  of  God's  people,  when  the  cove- 
nant should  be  fully  realised,  when  Jehovah  should  be  truly 
their  God  and  they  His  people,  the  saints  would  not  be 
translated  into  heaven  to  be  with  God,  but  He  would  come 
down  to  earth  and  abide  among  them.  The  tabernacle  of 
God  would  be  with  men.  That  state  of  blessedness  which 
we  transfer  to  heaven,  they  thought  would  be  realised  on 
earth.  They  were  not  insensible  to  the  evils  that  were  on 
the  earth,  nor  did  they  suppose  that  God  would  dwell  with 
men  upon  the  earth,  the  earth  remaining  as  it  is.  On  the 
contrary,  the  coming  of  the  Lord  would  destroy  evil,  and  the 
earth  would  be  transformed  :  "  Behold,  I  create  new  heavens 
and  a  new  earth  "  (Isa.  Ixv.  17).  Yet  it  remained  the  earth ; 
and  in  the  new  and  transfigured  world  the  principles  of 
God's  present  rule  were  but  carried  to  perfection.  Hence 
essentially,  though  not  perfectly,  the  pious  Israelite  had, 
in  God's  presence  with  him,  what  we  name  heaven,  although 
upon  earth ;  and  though  he  might  long  and  look  for  the 
day  of  the  Lord,  when  God  would  appear  in  His  glory  and 
transform  all  things,  this  change  did  not  create  another 
world,  but  brought  in  the  religious  perfection  of  the  present 
one.  In  other  words,  what  we  call,  and  what  is  to  us, 
heaven,  the  Israelite  called  earth,  when  the  Lord  had  come 
to  dwell  in  His  fulness  among  men ;  there  was  no  trans- 
lation into  another  sphere.  There  were  not  two  worlds, 
but  one. 

And  this  coming  of  the  Lord  was  regarded  as  imminent. 
The  pious  mind  saw  the  Lord  in  every thhig,  especially 
in  any  great  calamity  or  convulsion  among  the  nations ; 
He  was  present  there,  and  His  full  presence  was  ready 
to  be  revealed.  And  this  feeling  of  the  nearness  of  the 
Lord's    coming    helps   greatly   to   explain   the   paucity   of 


508        THE    THEOLOGY    OF   THE    OLD   TESTAMENT 

the  references  to  tlie  doatli  of  tlie  individual.  I  suspect 
we  miglit  find  the  same  paucity  in  tlie  apostolic  writings, 
and  for  the  same  reason.  The  mind  of  tlie  Church  in 
Israel  corresponded  greatly  to  the  mind  of  the  early  Chris- 
tian Church.  The  great  object  of  expectation  was  the 
coming  of  the  Lord.  The  salvation  was  ready  to  be 
revealed.  The  living  generation  might  see  it.  Living 
men  could  take  up  the  words  of  the  apostle — "  We  tliat 
are  alive  and  remain  at  His  coming"  (Thess.  iv  15). 
Hence  the  death  of  the  individual  had  not  the  significance 
which  it  has  come  to  have  among  us.  Our  point  of  view 
is  changed.  We  may  look  for  the  coming  of  the  Lord ; 
but,  however  certain  in  itself,  its  time  is  uncertain,  while 
our  own  death,  besides  being  certain,  cannot  be  very  far 
off.  And,  consequently,  the  death  of  the  individual  has 
now  come  to  usurp  the  place  which,  both  in  Israel  and  in 
the  early  Christian  Church,  was  held  by  the  coming  of 
the  Lord. 

(3)  The  conflict  of  the  view  of  life  with  the  fact  of  death. 
— Life,  as  has  been  said,  was  that  which  we  name  so,  the 
existence  of  the  person  in  all  his  parts,  body  and  soul,  in 
the  fellowship  of  God.  Death  was  a  severance  of  the 
person  from  God's  fellowship.  Hence  arose  a  confhet ;  and 
in  the  triumph  of  faith  over  the  fact  of  death,  lies  largely 
the  Old  Testament  contribution  to  the  doctrine  of  im- 
mortality. 

{a)  Now,  first,  I  suspect  it  must  be  admitted  that  some- 
times, especially  in  the  earlier  periods,  the  Old  Testament 
saint  acquiesced  in  death ;  he  accepted  it  even  under  the  feel- 
ing that  it  was  severance  from  God.  One  of  the  strangest 
things  in  the  Old  Testament  is  the  little  place  which  the 
individual  feels  he  has,  and  his  tendency  to  lose  himself  in 
larger  wholes,  such  as  the  family  or  the  nation.  When 
in  earlier  times  the  individual  approached  death,  he  felt 
that  he  had  received  the  blessing  of  life  from  God,  and  had 
enjoyed  it  in  His  communion.  His  sojourn  with  God  had 
come  to  an  end ;  he  was  old  and  full  of  days,  and  he 
acquiesced.    However  strange  his  acquiescence  may  seem  to 


EFFORTS   OF   FAITH  509 

US,  lie  coiiHolod  liiiiisclf  witli  tlie  thoii<;lifc  tliat  lie  did  not 
all  die,  the  uienioiy  of  the  righteous  was  hlessed.  He 
lived,  too,  in  his  children  and  in  his  people  ;  he  saw  the 
good  of  Israel ;  his  spirit  lived,  and  the  work  of  his  hands 
was  established.  The  great  sul>ject  was  the  people,  the 
nation.  Jehovah  had  made  His  covenant  with  the  nation ; 
the  individual  shared  its  blessings  only  in  the  second 
degree,  through  the  prosperity  of  the  people.  And  he  was 
content  to  lose  himself  in  the  larger  whole  ;  to  have  poured 
his  little  stream  of  life  and  service  into  the  tide  of  national 
life,  and  in  some  degree  swelled  it.  This  was  particularly 
the  case  in  earlier  times.  But  wlien  the  nation  came  to 
an  end  with  the  Captivity,  and  national  religion  and  life 
no  more  existed,  the  individual  rose  to  his  proper  place  and 
rights  ;  he  felt  his  own  worth  and  his  own  responsibility. 
Though  the  nation  had  fallen,  God  remained  and  religion 
remained ;  but  it  remained  only  in  the  heart  of  the  indi- 
vidual. The  religious  unit,  formerly  the  people,  now 
became  the  individual  person.  With  the  fall  of  the 
nation,  religion  took  a  greater  stride  towards  Christianity 
than  it  had  done  since  the  Exodus.  Hence  the  problems 
of  the  individual  life  rose  into  prominence,  particularly  the 
problem  of  death. 

The  efforts  of  faith,  as  we  have  interpreted  them,  seem 
made  on  two  lines :  (a)  First  an  appeal  is  taken,  in  a  way 
not  quite  easy  for  us  to  understand,  against  the  fact  of  death, 
a  demand  for  not  dying, — a  protest  against  the  fellowship 
of  the  living  man  here  with  God  being  interrupted.  It  is 
probable  that  the  examples  of  this  may  be  to  be  referred 
to  particular  circumstances,  when  death  might  be  actually 
threatening ;  and  this  fact  helps  us  somewhat  to  understand 
them.  But  the  language  used,  the  demand  made  for  con- 
tinuance of  life,  the  lofty  assurance  expressed  by  faith,  that 
from  the  relation  of  the  person  to  God  life  cannot  be  inter- 
rupted, rise  to  the  expression  of  principles,  and  are  by  no 
means  merely  an  assurance  that  God  would  save  the  person 
from  death  on  this  particular  occasion.  They  express  what 
the  religious  mind  demands ;  what  it  feels  to  be  involved 


610   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

in  its  relations  to  Jehovah  absohitely  and  apart  from  all 
circnmstanccs.  (b)  Secondly,  we  ol)serve  the  faitli  of  tlie 
Old  Testament  saints  operating  in  a  less  ecstatic  way,  which 
to  us  is  more  comprehensible.  The  first  was  a  protest 
against  death,  and  a  rising  up  to  the  enunciation  of  the 
principles  involved  in  the  relation  of  the  living  believer  to 
God.  This  second  is  rather  a  protest  that  dying  is  not 
death  ;  it  is  an  analysis  of  the  popular  conception  of  death, 
and  a  denial  of  its  truth.  According  to  the  popular  con- 
ception, dying  and  the  state  after  death  were  one :  the  dead 
person  descended  into  Sheol,  and  was  severed  from  God. 
Faith  now  reclaims  against  this  view.  The  death  of  the 
saint  is  not  this :  he  does  not  descend  into  Sheol,  he  over- 
leaps the  place  of  the  dead. 

(c)  Further,  it  is  evident  that  in  analysing  the  idea  of 
death,  and  concluding  that  in  the  case  of  the  righteous  it 
did  not  imply  descent  into  the  place  of  dead  persons,  there 
was  also  an  analysis  of  the  human  being  into  elements. 
Death  made  this  analysis  inevitable.  The  body  fell  into 
decay,  and  faith  was  only  able  to  assure  itself  that  the 
persan  was  taken  by  God.  There  is  no  means  of  knowing 
what  view  was  entertained  of  the  condition  of  the  person. 
It  may  be  doubtful  if,  with  the  strong  view  had  of  life,  as 
the  full  existence  of  the  person  in  the  unity  of  all  his  parts, 
body  and  soul,  they  would  regard  the  condition,  even  of 
those  whom  they  described  as  taken  by  God,  as  properly  to 
be  called  life.  Faith  needed  to  supplement  itself.  This 
it  did  by  the  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  It 
was  chiefly  the  prophets  who  brought  up  this  side ;  and 
the  idea  of  resurrection  is  presented  first  as  the  raising  up 
of  the  dead  nation,  as  in  Ezekiel's  vision  of  the  dry  bones 
of  Israel.  There  is,  however,  one  very  beautiful  passage 
where  the  idea  occurs  in  connection  with  the  individual 
(Job  xiv.).  As  has  been  said,  Job  regarded  his  malady  as 
proof  of  God's  estrangement  from  him.  Further,  he  re- 
garded his  malady  as  mortal ;  God's  estrangement  would 
endure  to  the  end  of  his  life.  With  these  feelings  in  his 
mind  the  thought  suddenly  presented  itself,  that  this  life 


MORAL   MEANING    OF   DEATH  511 

on  earth  might  not  be  the  only  one — life  might  be  renewed  ; 
out  of  Sheol  and  the  grave  lie  niiglit  be  called  by  God's  re- 
turning favour  to  a  second  life.  "  0  that  Tliou  wouldcst  hide 
me  in  Sheol  till  Thy  wrath  be  past ;  tliat  Thou  wouldest 
appoint  a  set  time,  and  remember  me  ! "  But  wliile  pursu- 
ing the  thought  he  becomes  conscious  of  what  is  involved 
in  it — If  a  man  die,  shall  he  live  again  ?  But,  without 
answering  the  objection,  he  pursues  his  original  dream  of  a 
second  life  :  "  All  the  days  of  my  appointed  time  would 
I  wait  till  my  change  came.  Thou  wouldst  call,  and  I 
would  answer  Thee  ;  Thou  wouldst  yearn  after  the  work 
of  Thine  hands." 


11.    The  Moral  Meaning  of  Death. 

We  have  drawn  attention  to  a  number  of  passages  in 
the  Old  Testament  with  the  view  of  exhibiting  the  way  in 
which  the  Hebrew  mind  regarded  death  and  the  state  of 
the  dead.  These  passages  are  to  a  large  extent  popular, 
some  of  them  poetical,  and  therefore  not  fitted  to  bear  the 
weight  of  dogmatic  inferences  being  built  upon  them.  But 
they  are  sufficiently  plain  to  enable  us  to  reach  the  popular 
way  of  thinking  regarding  death.  It  may  be  of  use  now  to 
indicate  the  views  given  of  the  moral  meaning  of  death  and 
its  opposite.  Much  depends  here  on  the  method  on  which 
we  approach  the  investigation  of  Scripture  on  such  ques- 
tions. In  a  work  entitled  The  Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin, 
by  the  late  Principal  Tulloch  of  St.  Andrews,  the  following 
statements  are  made,  among  others,  on  this  question  of 
immortality :  "  But  what  of  physical  death  ?  it  may  be 
asked — Is  not  this  also  immediately  connected  with  sin 
as  its  consequence  ?  Is  it  not  so  specially  in  St.  Paul's 
Epistles  ?  What  then  are  we  to  make  of  this  ?  To  tlie 
modern  mind,  death  is  a  purely  natural  fact.  It  comes  in 
course  of  time  as  the  natural  issue  of  all  organism,  which 
by  its  very  life  spends  itself,  and  liastens  towards  dis- 
solution as  an  inevitable  end.  AVe  cannot  conceive  any 
iudivichial  life  perpetuated  under  tlie  existing  laws  of  the 


512   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

external  world.  .  .  .  The  physical  fact  of  death  therefore 
cannot  be  traced  to  sin  as  its  sole  cause.  Nor  can  Paul 
be  said  to  do  this.  Even  when  he  speaks  of  death  as  the 
dissolution  of  the  body,  it  is  not  only  this  dissolution  that 
he  means,  but  death  with  all  its  adjuncts  of  pain  and  sad- 
ness and  spiritual  apprehension"  (p.  163).  "Death  as  a 
simple  physical  fact  is  unaffected  by  moral  conditions.  Its 
character  may  be  greatly  altered,  and  no  doubt  has  been 
greatly  altered,  by  the  fact  of  sin ;  but  its  incidence  is 
natural,  and  lies  in  the  constitution  of  things.  .  .  .  Physical 
dissolution  did  not  directly  follow  the  act  of  sin,  and  is 
not  connected  with  it  as  immediate  cause  and  effect" 
(pp.  76—77).  "The  dissolution  of  the  physical  system  is 
nowhere  in  St.  Paul  nor  in  Scripture  represented  as  solely 
the  result  of  sin.  The  death  of  Adam,  the  death  of  sin, 
in  St.  Paul  is  always  something  more  than  mere  physical 
death.  It  may  include  the  death  of  the  body — it  does  this 
plainly  and  prominently  in  the  passage  before  us  [Rom.  v.  1 2], 
but  it  always  includes  more ;  ...  It  is  beyond  doubt  that 
death  itself  in  the  mere  sense  of  decay  is  inherent  in  all 
organism ;  that  the  conditions  of  life,  in  short,  are  death  ; 
and  that  infant  organic  structures  consequently  should  die 
when  weak  or  imperfect  or  ready  to  vanish  away,  is  no 
more  remarkal:)le  than  that  any  other  organism  should 
perish"  (p.  188). 

These  passages  are  specimens  of  many  others  in  the 
volume.  It  may  strike  one  that  the  consistency  of  some 
statements  in  the  extracts  with  others  is  not  apparent  at 
once.  For  example,  it  is  said  that  the  "  dissolution  of  the 
physical  system,"  i.e.  natural  death,  "  is  nowhere  in  St.  Paul 
represented  as  solely  the  result  of  sin  "  ;  and  yet  immediately 
after  it  is  admitted  that  in  Rom.  v.  12,  where  Paul  says, 
"  As  by  one  man  sin  entered  into  tlie  world,  and  death  by 
sin,"  the  death  of  the  body  is  "  plainly  and  prominently " 
included.  It  is  added  that  more  is  always  included  ;  but 
it  is  hard  to  see  how^  the  inclusion  of  more  excludes  this. 
And  in  anotlier  passage  the  w^riter  says :  "  If  the  apostle's 
view   of    the    consequences   of    sin   included   deaiii   as   an 


DEATH  A8  A  PHYSICAL  FACT         513 

external  fact,  the  special  meaning  of  tlie  fact  for  ]nni  .  .  . 
was  spiritual"  (p.  164).  What  is  meant  hy  saying  that 
the  meaning  of  deatli  as  an  external  fact  was  spiritual  may 
be  left  an  open  question  :  hut  it  is  (hllicult  to  reconcile  the 
admission  that  Paul's  view  of  the  conse(juences  of  sin  in- 
cluded death  as  an  external  fact,  witli  the  assertion  that 
tlie  dissolution  of  the  physical  system  is  "  nowhere  in 
St.  Paul  .  .  .  represented  as  solely  the  result  of  sin."  The 
author's  use  of  the  words  '  sole '  and  '  solely '  is  peculiar. 
For  he  says  plainly  "  death  as  a  simple  physical  fact  is 
unaffected  by  moral  conditions,"  and  again,  "  it  is  beyond 
doubt  that  death  itself  in  the  mere  sense  of  decay  is 
inherent  in  all  organism  " ;  and  then  he  says  "  the  physical 
fact  of  death,  therefore,  cannot  be  traced  to  sin  as  the 
sole  cause."  But  however  we  may  criticise  words,  the 
general  drift  of  the  author  is  unmistakable,  which  is,  that 
natural  or  physical  death  in  man  is  not  due  to  sin,  but 
is  the  result  of  his  constitution,  being  inherent  in  organism  ; 
and  that  when  it  is  said  "  the  wages  of  sin  is  death," 
what  is  meant  by  death  is  a  certain  condition  of  man's 
spirit,  not  any  fact  in  his  history.  I  cite  these  passages 
not  for  the  purpose  of  controverting  as  unscriptural  the 
views  presented  in  them,  though  I  consider  them  to  be 
unscriptural,  but  to  draw  attention  to  the  viciousness  of 
the  method  of  investigation  adopted,  namely,  that  of  mixing 
up  the  views  of  Scripture  and  the  results  of  science,  and 
attempting  to  identify  them  before  any  thorough  investiga- 
tion of  what  the  view  of  Scripture  is,  and  particularly 
before  ascertaining  what  its  point  of  view  is. 

The  Old  Testament  certainly  has  a  view  on  this  subject 
which  is  neither  that  of  modern  science  nor  that  of  ancient 
speculation.  I  do  not  say  that  its  view  is  in  contradiction 
to  either  of  these  views,  but  it  diflers  from  them.  And  in 
order  to  ascertain  the  real  truth  on  any  question,  it  is  well 
to  allow  each  witness  to  give  his  testimony  separately,  and 
from  his  own  point  of  view,  without  making  premature 
attempts  at  reconciling  one  evidence  with  anotlier. 

Now   the   general   scope   of   Scripture   on   such    broad 
33 


514        THE   THEOLOGY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT 

questions  as  death,  sin,  God,  and  the  Hke,  can  he  ascer- 
tained. One  thing,  indeed,  that  cliaracteriscs  Scriptnre  in 
distinction  from  modern  Uterature — looking  at  it  as  a 
national  literature — is  tliat  its  deliverances  on  any  suhject 
are  consistent  throughout.  There  is  no  such  violent  anti- 
thesis of  opinion  on  these  questions  as  occurs  in  modern 
literature.  From  beginning  to  end  of  the  Bible  the  view 
taken  of  death,  for  example,  and  sin,  is  self-consistent. 
But  the  full  view  is  nowhere  presented  at  once ;  and  hence, 
in  order  to  pass  a  just  judgment  as  to  Scripture  teaching 
on  such  a  subject,  we  have  to  familiarise  ourselves  with 
the  whole  of  Scripture. 

The  acquiring  of  this  familiarity  is  not  an  easy  thing. 
It  takes,  I  might  say,  the  labour  and  experience  of  a 
lifetime.  For  Scripture  is  a  literary  work  written  in  the 
language  of  life,  and  not  in  that  of  the  schools,  whether  of 
Philosophy  or  Theology  or  Science ;  and  whatever  ways  of 
thinking  and  speaking  men  have,  will  appear  in  it.  All 
forms  of  human  composition  that  the  genial,  subtle,  various, 
calculating,  enraptured  human  mind  may  employ  to  express 
itself,  may  be  looked  for  in  it.  The  ways  of  reaching  its 
sense  are  a  thousand.  One  must  lay  bare  all  his  sensi- 
bilities, and  bring  himself  en  rayport  with  it  on  every 
side,  and  weigh  general  statements,  and  make  the  necessary 
deduction  from  a  hyperbole,  and  calculate  the  moral  value 
of  a  metaphor,  and  estimate  and  generalise  upon  sentiments 
that  are  never  themselves  general,  but  always  the  outcome 
of  an  intense  life  in  very  particular  conditions,  and  even 
take  up  with  his  dumb  heart  "  the  groanings  that  cannot 
be  uttered."  But  these  two  positions  are  to  be  firmly 
maintained,  ^rs^,  that  Scripture  has  a  meaning  and  a  view 
of  its  own  on  most  moral  and  religious  questions ;  and  not 
more  than  one  view  really,  although,  of  course,  difterent 
writers  may  present  the  view  with  all  the  variety  natural 
to  different  minds  and  diverse  circumstances ;  and  that 
this  view  is  not  to  be  inferred  from  any  single  text,  but 
fi'oni  tlie  whole  general  tenor  of  tliought  of  the  Scriptnre 
writers ;    and,   secondt   that   the   meaning   of    Scripture   is 


GOD    AS    THE   SOURCE    OF    LIFE  515 

capable  of  being  ascertained  from  Scripture  alone,  and 
onglit  not  to  l)e  controlled  by  anything  without — that, 
for  example,  our  interpretation  of  prophecy  ought  not  to 
be  made  dependent  on  historical  events  now  occurring  or 
that  have  occurred,  and  that  our  interpretation  of  Scripture 
statements  regarding  creation  or  the  constitution  of  man 
ought  not  to  be  submitted  to  the  judgment  of  geologists 
or  writers  on  physiology. 

Having  regard,  then,  to  the  point  of  view  of  Scripture, 
the  possibility  of  finding  its  meaning,  and  the  duty  of  seek- 
ing it,  from  itself  alone,  we  may  look  again  at  the  question 
in  hand.  Now,  the  cause  of  life  in  man  is  viewed  as  in  God. 
Grod  lives,  and  is  the  source  of  life.  He  sends  forth  His 
Spirit,  and  man  lives.  He  withdraws  His  Spirit,  and  man 
dies.  The  life  or  death  of  man  depends  on  tlie  will  of  God, 
and  is  due  to  an  influence  exerted  by  God.  Here,  no 
doubt,  we  enter  a  region  of  some  difficulty.  The  '  Spirit  of 
God  *  seems  sometimes  to  be  identical  witli,  or  to  be  the 
cause  of,  the  mere  physical  energy  whicli  we  call  life,  while 
at  other  times  it  is  identical  with  moral  power  and 
spiritual  vitality ;  and  Scripture  writers  sometimes  so  speak 
as  if  they  regarded  these  two  things  as  ultimately  the 
same,  and  held  a  decline  in  moral  vigour  to  be  equivalent 
to  a  decline  in  vital  energy.  But  however  this  be,  tliere 
is  no  d()ul)t  that  the  prevailing  view  taken  of  God  in 
Scripture  is  not  pliysical,  but  ethical.  He  is  spoken  of  as 
personal,  and  having  a  character.  It  is  true  tliat  He  is 
living,  has  life  in  Himself,  and  communicates  life  by 
communicating  Himself ;  but  it  is  taught,  above  all,  that 
this  communication  of  Himself  is  the  free  act  of  a  Person, 
and  is  the  consequence  of  His  goodness  and  love,  which  is 
His  character. 

But  the  same  is  the  case  with  man.  He  has  been 
created  in  the  image  of  God ;  he  is  a  free  person,  and  has 
a  moral  character.  And  his  relations  to  that  which  is 
without  him  are  the  expressions  of  his  freedom  and 
character.  God  and  man  are  alike  in  this.  Tlie  difference 
is  that   God  communicates  and    man  receives.     Whether 


516   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

what  passes  between  them  be  a  physical  influence  or  a 
moral  influence,  the  conditions  of  it  are  on  both  sides  moral. 
Man  is  not  considered  in  Scripture  as  a  duality,  but  as 
a  unity,  though  a  unity  composed  of  elements ;  and  the 
principle  of  this  unity,  the  centre  of  it,  is  his  moral 
relation  to  God.  This  binds  all  his  parts  into  one,  and 
retains  his  constitution  entire  as  he  came  from  God. 
The  narrative  beginning  with  chap.  ii.  of  Genesis  places 
man  thus  created  before  us  in  true  relations  to  God,  and 
living ;  it  describes  how  God  called  to  man's  consciousness 
these  relations,  concentrating  them  into  a  particular  point ; 
and  how  He  set  before  him  death  as  the  penalty  of  any 
change  in  these  true  relations :  "  Thou  shalt  not  eat :  in  the 
day  thou  eatest  thereof,  thou  shalt  die."  He  ate,  and  died. 
This  was  the  penalty  attached  to  eating  the  tree.  In  the 
day  man  ate,  he  died.  He  became  mortal,  in  the  sense 
that  he  must  die.  Death  laid  his  hand  on  him,  and  called 
him  his  own  from  that  moment.  From  that  moment  he 
was  dead  in  sin ;  dead  as  the  consequence  of  sin.  He 
could  be  called  dead  in  the  language  of  Paul,  who  says  to 
men  who  still  lived :  "  The  body,  indeed,  is  dead  because 
of  sin." 

It  really  scarcely  requires  to  be  argued  that  '  death  * 
in  Scripture,  as  weU  as  '  life,'  and  indeed  all  other  terms 
of  a  similar  kind,  is  used  as  part  of  the  language  of 
*  common  sense.'  The  term  death  is  not  a  synonym  for 
sin  or  sinfulness  any  more  than  hfe  is  a  synonym  for 
righteousness ;  at  least  not  in  the  Old  Testament,  nor, 
I  think,  in  the  writings  of  St.  Paul.  Everywhere  in  the 
Old  Testament  and  in  St.  Paul  '  death '  is  regarded  as  a 
thing  distinct  from  '  sin,'  of  which  it  is  the  consequence, 
and  it  always  embraces  what  we  know  as  physical  death. 
And  everywhere  '  Hfe '  is  distinguished  from  *  righteousness,' 
and  always  embraces  life  in  tlie  body,  and  in  the  New 
Testament  the  resurrection  life.  The  expression  '  dead  in 
sin,'  which  we  use  to  signify  wliat  we  call  spiritual  dcad- 
ness,  is  not  Scriptural  language  for  that  idea.  Indeed, 
it    is    the   very   converse    of    the   language    of    Scripture. 


EFFECTS    OF    DEATH  517 

Tliat  state  in  wliich  the  natural  man  is  when  sin  reigns, 
])efure  ever  the  moral  ideal  lias  risen  l)of(»re  the  mind 
and  disturbed  the  placidity  and  naive  instinctiveness  of 
the  sinful  actions,  is  not  called  death  by  the  apostle,  but 
life :  "  I  was  alive  without  the  law  once "  (Rom.  vii.  9). 
It  is  the  second  stage  that  is  called  death,  when  the 
commandment  has  been  introduced  into  the  mind,  and 
has  decomposed  its  unity,  and  made  its  elements  fly  to 
different  sides  and  take  part  one  half  of  it  with  the  law 
and  the  other  half  with  sin,  "  When  the  commandment 
came,  sin  revived,  and  I  died."  Then  he  was  dead  in  sin ; 
doomed  to  die  in  the  element  of  sin.  Both  in  the  Old 
Testament  and  in  the  New  man  is  regarded  as  a  unity; 
and  when  it  is  said  in  the  Old,  "  In  the  day  thou  eatest 
thereof  thou  shalt  surely  die"  (Gen.  ii.  17),  and  in  the 
New,  "The  wages  of  sin  is  death"  (Rom.  vi.  23),  death 
is  used  in  its  ordinary  full  sense ;  just  as  when  it  is  said, 
"  In  the  path  of  righteousness  is  life"  (Prov.  xii.  28),  and 
"  Grace  shall  reign  through  righteousness  unto  eternal  life  " 
(Rom.  V.  21),  life  means  in  the  one  case  this  compound 
life  which  men  live  in  the  present  body,  and  in  the  other 
tlie  new  life  which  men  shall  live  in  the  new  body.  Of 
course,  '  death '  is  a  large  word ;  it  includes  not  only 
dying,  but  remaining  dead.  It  embraces  all  that  lias 
been  said  above  of  the  condition  of  the  dead.  The  views 
then  exhibited  expressed  the  general  mind  of  the  people ; 
but  this  might  be  subject  to  further  enlightenment,  e.r/.  a 
distinction  might  be  made  between  the  condition  of  tlie 
righteous  and  that  of  the  wicked,  etc. 

Still  the  question  comes.  What  ideas  were  entertained 
of  the  effects  of  this  natural  death  ?  What  was  the  fate 
or  condition  of  the  soul  ?  First  of  all,  the  Old  Testament 
view  was  not  materialistic.  Just  as  the  story  of  creation 
represents  the  body  as  com])]ete,  while  not  yet  inhabited 
by  the  soul,  which  was  drawn  from  elsewhere  and  entered 
the  body ;  so  tlie  soul  leaves  the  body  in  death,  but  does 
not  become  extinct.  When  tlie  dead  man  is  raised,  the 
spirit  or  soul  comes  again  to  the  body.     TJie  necromancer 


518   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

can  evoke  the  dead.  Death  is  the  extinction  of  no  person. 
But,  again,  the  Hebrew  view  is  far  from  being  akin  to  that 
ancient  philosophic  theory  which  held  the  body  to  be  the 
spirit's  prison-house,  which  when  set  at  liberty  rejoiced  in 
a  fuller  life,  and  could  expand  its  members  to  a  greater 
exercise  of  power  than  was  possible  to  them  when  cramped 
in  their  narrow  material  cell. 

The  terms  as  tliey  are  used  popularly  embrace  all  that 
we  usually  associate  with  life  and  death,  the  joy  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  fears,  regrets,  darkness,  and  the  like,  on  the 
other.  For  death  being  the  consequence  of  sin,  what  lends 
terror  to  it,  in  addition  to  the  shrinking  of  a  living  being 
from  it,  is  the  consciousness  of  this.  And  in  addition  to 
this  it  may  happen  that  seeing  death  is  now,  so  to  speak, 
normal  (through  the  effect  of  sin,  sin  being  universal) ;  any- 
thing extraordinary  about  it,  any  aggravation  of  it,  e.g.  its 
suddenness,  or  prematureness,  or  disastrousness,  may  be 
specially  regarded  as  the  judgment  and  punislnnent  of  sin, 
and  not  the  mere  death  itself,  seeing  it  is  a  common  fate. 
But  this  does  not  hinder  that  death  itself  is  always  included  ; 
and  that,  though  the  awful  death  is  specially  the  judgment 
on  the  wicked,  even  the  death  of  the  righteous  is  an  awful 
evil.  Neither  does  this  hinder  that  death  may  sometimes, 
as  in  Job's  case,  lie  looked  at  as  a  relief.  That  is  only 
relative.  Death  is  essentially  an  evil.  It  is  always  an 
effect  of  sin,  an  intensification  of  the  effects  of  sin,  namely, 
separation  from  God.      It  is  the  greatest  possible  separation. 

In  the  xvth  cliapter  of  1  Corinthians,  Paul  writes :  "  As 
by  man  came  death,  by  man  came  also  tlie  resurrection " 
(ver.  21).  Could  it  be  argued  here  that  not  the  fact  of 
death,  but  only  the  moral  consequences  of  it,  came  by  sin  ? 
No  man  in  his  senses  would  so  argue.  Or  could  it  be 
argued  that  spiritual  torpidity  came  by  man,  and  spiritual 
resurrection  by  Christ  ?  This  was  the  very  error  that  the 
chapter  was  written  to  confute.  Or  could  it  lie  argued 
that  the  expiession  *  by  man '  meant  that  death  was  a 
necessary  consc(|uence  of  his  constitution,  he  being  an 
organism  ?     Now,  certainly  the  apostle  says  that  the  first 


DEATH   AS   PENALTY  519 

man  was  'earthy'  and  not  'spiritual,'  and  that  'flesh  and 
blood '  cannot  inherit  the  kingdom  of  God.  He  certainly 
believed  that  the  condition  in  which  Adam  was  created 
was  not  one  in  whicli  he  could  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  God.  And  it  might  be  supposed  that  he  considered 
man  mortal  by  nature,  and  that  lie  nnist  pass  througli 
death  in  order  to  attain  a  spiritual  body.  But  this  would 
not  be  an  inference  in  the  line  of  his  reasoning.  For 
lie  says  even  of  men  as  now  constituted :  "  We  shall  not 
all  sleep;  but  we  shall  all  be  changed "  (ver.  51).  This 
shows  that  ho  distinguished  between  dying  and  that  change 
of  the  earthy  into  the  spiritual  which  must  take  place  in 
order  to  enter  the  kingdom  of  God  or  perfect  Messianic 
kingdom,  and  that  man's  being  '^oIk6<;,  or  earthy,  did 
not  in  his  view  imply  the  necessity  of  death.  Of  course, 
the  capacity  of  death  is  implied.  Immortality  was  not 
inherent  in  the  nature  of  the  original  man  as  a  quality 
of  it.  Scripture  says  nothing  of  such  a  thing ;  but  in  the 
moral  condition  of  man  as  a  righteous,  religious  being, 
immortality  was  inherent. 

When,  therefore,  it  is  said  that  the  penalty  of  sinning 
was  deatli,  we  nuist  start  from  death  as  we  know  it.  The 
dead  are  insensible  to  all  that  is.  Fellowship  with  the 
living  ceases.  Fellowship  with  all  ceases,  even  with  God. 
The  soul  exists ;  but  it  has  no  conscious  relations. 

The  cause  of  this  is  separation  from  God.  The  Hebrew 
people  took  a  certain  view  of  evil,  including  physical  evil. 
They  always  regarded  evil  as  evidence  of  the  anger  of  God. 
This  is  the  fundamental  idea  in  Job  on  both  sides.  Even 
to  Job  himself  his  calamities  were  proofs  of  God's  anger, 
though  the  anger  was  undeserved.  Perhaps  the  book  was 
written  partly  to  break  in  upon  this  view  and  modify  it. 
But  the  view  everywhere  prevailed.  The  suppliant  prayed 
that  God  would  not  visit  upon  him  the  sins  of  his  youth. 
Evil  was  the  consequence  of  God's  anger.  Hence,  of  course, 
death,  the  greatest  evil,  was  the  extreme  consequence.  The 
people  saw  in  evil  the  signature  of  God's  feeling  towards 
them.     He  had  left  them  when   lie  chastised,  left  them 


520   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

altogether  \Ylieu  He  chastised  unto  deatlj.  It  may  he  doubt- 
ful, on  the  other  hand,  if  they  realised  the  absence  of  God 
except  in  these  evils.  Despondency  or  spiritual  depression 
outside  of  ti'ouble  perliaps  did  not  assail  them.  That  state 
of  feeling  which  we  name  the  sense  of  desertion  by  God 
did  not  produce  itself  in  them  except  through  calamities. 
These  calamities  were  to  them  the  proof,  and  gave  rise 
to  the  sense,  of  being  forsaken.  Hence  also  Christ  felt 
forsaken  in  the  midst  of  His  sufferings,  and  never  before. 
He  was  a  true  Old  Testament  saint.  But  in  His  sulTer- 
ings  He  realised  this  abandonment  by  God  as  truly  as  the 
Old  Testament  saint  did.  In  death  He  was  aljandoned ; 
in  it  He  realised  His  abandonment.  Thus  on  both  sides 
there  was  no  feeling  of  God's  anger  except  through 
suffering  and  death ;  on  the  other  side,  there  never  was 
suffering  and  death  without  the  feeling  of  God's  anger. 
Death  expressed  this. 

To  die  was  to  become  separate  from  God ;  to  be  dead 
was  to  continue  in  this  state  of  separation.  This  is  the 
meaning  of  death  in  the  Old  Testament.  Hence  the 
terrors  that  gathered  around  dying.  Throughout  the  Old 
Testament  the  ideas  that  usually  come  to  expression  on 
the  subject  of  death  are  dark  indeed.  They  are  so  dark 
as  to  suggest  at  once  the  question  whether  so  gloomy  a 
view  could  have  prevailed  exclusively.  To  this  we  may 
reply  that  such  a  view  could  prevail  only  where  God's 
grace  had  not  begun  to  manifest  itself.  Death  was  separa- 
tion from  God,  but  the  very  idea  of  a  covenant  is  union 
with  God,  and  union  with  God  is  '  life.' 

This,  then,  is  death,  which  is  the  wages  of  sin.  The 
picture  given  of  it  can  perhaps  scarcely  be  called  Scripture 
teaching,  it  is  rather  the  preliminary  to  Scripture  teaching ; 
it  is  the  dark  ground  upon  which  Faith  is  enabled  to  paint 
her  brighter  views,  but  the  ground  itself  is  not  wholly 
matter  of  revelation.  It  is  the  expression  rather  of  the 
moral  consciousness  of  a  people  on  whom  the  sense  of 
human  sin  and  of  God's  holiness  had  taken  a  profound 
hold,  and  who  were  ignorant  of  any  final  and  thorough 


FLUCTUATIONS    OF    HEBREW    MIND  521 

means  of  tlieir  reconciliation.  These  ])i('tuies  of  death 
and  the  state  of  tlie  dead,  th()uu,Ii  (h'awn  by  saints,  are 
visually  drawn  by  saints  in  sickness.  The  coniplainer 
in  Ps.  vi.  is  sick  nnto  death.  So  was  Hezekiah  ;  so  was 
Job.  Now  it  is  not  that  in  such  circumstances  the 
imagination  mixes  even  still  darker  colours.  There  was 
a  special  oppression  upon  the  mind.  Sickness  and  all 
other  evils,  especially  of  the  same  direct  character,  were 
the  tokens  of  God's  anger ;  and  His  anger  was  for  sin. 
This  was  the  source  of  Job's  extreme  perplexity.  The 
Psahnist  pleaded  that  God  would  not  chasten  him  in  His 
hot  displeasure,  for  such  chastisement  would  be  unto  death  ; 
and  another  Psalmist  hundjly  deprecated  being  visited 
with  the  sins  of  his  youth.  Sickness  brought  profoundly 
home  the  sense  of  sin,  and  this  sense  shed  a  lurid  liglit, 
which  made  the  darkness  of  Sheol  even  darker.  Perhaps 
the  Old  Testament  saints  did  not  realise  the  anger  or  the 
absence  of  God,  except  in  these  evils.  Despondency  or 
spiritual  depression  did  not  perhaps  assail  them  out  of 
trouble.  That  state  of  feeling  which  we  name  the  sense 
of  desertion  did  not  produce  itself  in  them  except  through 
calamities.  But  the  sense  of  sin  and  of  God's  estrange- 
ment was  always  reflected  from  evil.  And,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  sense  of  God's  favour  was  realised  in  prosperity 
and  health.  Thus  the  man  limd  in  the  light  of  God,  and 
his  candle  shone  upon  his  head. 

To  the  saint  thus  living  and  blessed  in  the  present  an 
outlook  into  the  future  did  not  occur.  In  his  calm  or 
ecstatic  felicity  there  was  no  room  for  the  exercise  of  that 
restless  analytic  that  is  ever  distinguishing  between  this 
world  and  another.  To  him  there  was  but  one  world,  one 
system  of  things.  Or,  if  there  were  two,  it  was  this  world 
with  God,  and  this  world  without  Him.  The  wicked  had 
the  latter ;  he,  the  former.  In  that  unity  with  God,  which 
might  be  called  essential,  there  was  no  room  for  distinction 
or  change. 

The  cause  of  the  fluctuation  in  the  mind  of  the  Old 
Testament  saint  was  his  inability  to  dispose  of  the  question 


522   THE  THEOLOGY  OP  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

of  sin.  No  mode,  satisfying  to  the  reason,  of  disposing  of 
sin  was  known  by  him.  It  was  not  possible  that  the  blood 
of  bulls  and  of  goats  could  take  away  sin.  His  ceremonies 
could  not  make  him  perfect  as  pertaining  to  the  conscience. 
There  was  a  remembrance  made  of  sin  every  year.  And 
as  the  sense  of  God's  favour  or  the  feeling  of  sin  prevailed, 
the  mind  fluctuated  between  the  lidit  of  heaven  and  the 
darkness  of  Hades.  But  to  us  all  this  is  altered.  We 
too  have  the  advantage  of  having  seen  the  subjective  hopes 
of  the  Old  Testament  saints  realised  in  a  case,  and  fellow- 
ship with  God  maintain  itself  even  through  death. 

12.  Further  on  the  Reconciliation  hetween  the  Idea  of 
Death  and  the  Idea  of  life. 

We  found  it  necessary  to  dismiss  from  our  minds 
many  ideas  connected  with  death  which  are  familiar  to 
us  who  have  the  light  of  a  fuller  revelation.  Denuding 
ourselves  of  these,  we  have  also  to  remember  that  such 
ideas  are  not  ideas  that  lie  at  the  beginning  of  the 
Old  Testament  development,  are  not  even  ideas  that  in 
their  fulness  are  to  be  found  anywhere  along  the  course 
of  the  Old  Testament  history  and  thought,  although  they 
may  be  seen  springing  up  and  receiving  expression  in  some 
measure  there.  They  are  ideas  that  are,  so  to  speak, 
wholes  made  up  of  many  fragments  that  lie  scattered  up 
and  down  the  Old  Testament ;  and  that  wliich  has  given 
them  unity  as  well  as  force,  changing  them  from  their 
character  of  anticipations  and  demands  of  faith  or  religious 
reason  into  stable  convictions,  has  been  the  life  of  Christ, 
in  whom  all  these  ideas — mere  postulates  or  ecstasies  of 
faith  before — have  been  converted  into  historical  facts. 
We  have  to  dismiss  also  from  our  minds  many  modes  of 
thinking  not  even  drawn  from  Christianity  directly,  but 
inherited  rather  from  the  traditions  of  European  thought, 
which  have  passed  into  our  Christian  thinking,  and  been, 
so  to  speak,  adopted  by  it.  Questions  of  the  nature  of 
the  soul  in  itself,  or  of  the  nature  of  the  body,  are  foreign 


man's  personality  523 

to  Scripture.  Now  liy  death  we  found  to  he  meant  foi- 
the  whole  perstni  an  insensihility  to  all  tliat  is  life,  and 
a  seclusion  from  it,  wliether  the  living  he  God  or  man. 
A  full  representation  of  all  that  is  said  in  Scripture  on 
this  point  would  occupy  much  space ;  hut  the  essential 
thing  in  it  is  what  has  heen  stated.  Questions  might  he 
raised  whether  the  separation  from  life  and  God  which 
was  involved  in  death  was  always  held  due  to  sin,  or 
only  afterwards  hecame  connected  with  the  idea  of  sin. 
To  answer  such  questions,  we  should  prol)ahly  have  to 
travel  into  regions  of  thouglit  among  the  Sliemitic  peoples 
that  lie  heyond  the  confines  of  history.  Prohahly  as  soon 
as  we  enter  upon  Old  Testament  times,  that  which  causes 
separation  from  God  will  he  found  to  be  sin,  and  death 
will  be  found  to  he  regarded  as  due  to  sin.  There  are 
passages  in  the  Old  Testament  in  which  death  seems 
regarded  as  a  natural  event.  Such  passages,  however, 
are  not  distinctively  religious,  and  do  not  bring  the  event 
strictly  into  connection  with  its  original  cause,  but  merely 
refer  to  it  as  a  thing  now  natural  to  men.  But  this  does 
not  show  that  it  is  natural  in  any  other  sense  than  that 
it  has  become  naturalised  ;  and  we  ourselves  employ  tlie 
same  methods  of  thought  and  speech. 

The  Old  Testament  idea  of  life,  too,  was  seen  to  be 
just  that  of  our  natural  life  in  our  present  personal  con- 
dition. And  the  person  is  composed  of  body  and  S(juL 
No  doul)t  tliis  is  not  equally  so.  The  personality  belongs 
to  the  soul  rather  than  to  the  body.  The  deceased  in 
Sheol  do  not  lose  personality  in  the  sense  that  the  in- 
dividual soul  evaporates  or  melts  away  into  a  general 
spiritual  element.  Such  an  idea  is  wholly  foreign  to 
the  Old  Testament.  Individualism  or  personality  is  one 
of  its  strongest  ideas,  and  the  identity  is  never  lost. 
And  of  course,  of  the  elements  of  which  the  living 
person  is  composed,  the  soul  is  by  fa?"  the  nobler  and  the 
more  energetic,  so  that  the  personality  is  considered  to 
adhere  to  it  when  it  separates.  But  this  does  not  hinder 
that  to  a  true  and  full  person  the  body  is  essential.      Now 


524   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

this  being  life,  that  is,  our  existence  in  full  personal  con- 
dition, that  whicli  gave  it  was  God.  It  was  an  etHux  from 
Him  ;  His  Spirit  communicated  it.  This  is  sometimes  spoken 
of  as  if  it  were  a  physical  relation  between  men  and  God. 
And  of  course,  in  some  sense  it  is  so.  There  is  no  point 
perhaps  more  obscure  in  the  Old  Testament  than  its 
method  of  speaking  of  the  Spirit  of  God  as  the  spirit  of 
life.  But  without  entering  into  that,  both  God  and  man 
are  chiefly  conceived  as  ethical.  Their  relations  are  moral 
Even  when  God  communicates  to  man  a  physical  influence, 
this  communication  is  made  under  ethical  conditions  on 
both  sides.  Thus  life  is  had  in  the  fellowship,  the  moral 
and  emotional  fellowship,  of  men  with  God.  This  life  is 
enjoyed  here.  It  is  the  fact  and  experience  of  its  enjoy- 
ment here  that  is  the  basis  and  ground  for  the  hope  and 
the  faith  of  it  at  any  future  time. 

Now,  one  can  readily  perceive  how,  based  on  thir. 
experience  of  the  possession  of  life,  the  expression  of  the 
faith  in  its  continuance  would  arise,  as  in  point  of  fact 
we  see  it  to  have  done,  in  two  ways.  One  way  might 
be  the  calm  and  contemplative  expression  of  the  principle. 
I  am  not  sure  but  we  have  raised,  and  perhaps  rightly, 
in  our  Christian  thinking,  as  it  has  come  to  be  current 
among  us  now,  certain  ideas  into  a  prominence  over  other 
ideas,  which  they  did  not  at  all  possess  in  Old  Testament 
times.  One  of  these  ideas  is  the  idea  of  sin.  In  the 
Old  Testament,  sin  is  far  from  being  ignored;  but  it 
takes  its  place  rather  within  than  above  the  general 
idea  of  God's  relation  to  men.  This  idea  embraces  it, 
rather  than  is  composed  of  it.  In  the  viiith  Psalm,  foi 
instance,  which  describes  the  place  which  God  has  assigned 
to  man  in  the  world,  sin  is  not  specially  alluded  ^o.  This 
is  not  because  the  Psalm  describes  man's  condition  before 
sin  entered ;  wluch  it  does  not  do.  Nor  because  the  Psalm 
describes  his  condition  after  sin  has  been  eliminated ;  for 
neither  does  it  do  this,  though  the  description  of  the  Psalm 
being  ideal,  when  it  is  realised,  may  correspond  to  this. 
But  the  Psalm   does   not    specially  mention   sin   nor  yet 


LARGER   IDEA   OF   WISDOM    BOOKS  525 

redemption,  because  it  includes  tlioin  both.  It  seizes  upon 
that  which  in  a  world  where  both  exist  it  sees  to  be 
the  prevailing  tendencies,  wliat  amidst  all  the  elements 
which  surround  him  in  his  relation  to  God  man's  ideal 
position  is.  And  this  is  what  makes  it  a  prophetic  Psalm, 
pointing  to  the  world  to  come,  when  this  ideal  shall  find 
verification. 

Now  this  is  tlie  character  of  very  much  of  the  Old 
Testament,  particularly  of  the  early  Old  Testament  writings. 
They  are  written  in  the  midst  of  a  world  wliere  sin  and 
redemption  both  exist,  and  they  seize  man's  relation  to 
God  not  on  one  side  or  the  other,  but  on  the  wliole.  And 
naturally  the  larger  idea  prevails  over  the  smaller,  the 
whole  view  absorbs  that  which  is  partial.  This  is  the 
point  of  view  of  the  early  Wisdom  as  seen  in  the  Proverbs. 
In  the  condition  of  the  country  that  then  prevailed,  when 
the  land  had  rest  and  the  social  virtues  were  still  un- 
corrupted,  the  true  principles  of  God's  relation  to  men 
were  seen  realising  themselves  without  interruption  or 
hindrance,  and  the  religious  philosopher  finds  his  highest 
enjoyment  in  meditating  on  these  principles  and  giving 
them  expression.  These  relations  are  conceived  as  essen- 
tial and  unchangeable,  and  the  fellowship  between  God 
and  the  persons  of  men  is,  so  to  speak,  absolute.  From 
what  he  sees  the  wise  man  rises  to  the  conception  of  a 
relation  that  cannot  be  interrupted.  And  when  he  says 
that  'the  pathway  of  righteousness  is  immortality,'  his 
words  express  not  the  temporary .  phenomenon,  but  the 
eternal  truth.  And  death  lias  no  place,  but  is  swept  away 
before  the  irresistible  wave  of  unchangeable  principles. 

Again,  expression  is  given  to  the  same  idea  in  very 
different  circumstances,  and  consequently  in  a  very  dillerent 
way ;  not  now  in  philosophic  calmness  expressing  what  it 
sees,  but  in  moral  perturbation  protesthig  against  what  it 
fears  or  demanding  what  it  fails  to  see.  Such  expression 
is  given  by  the  mind  of  a  person  feeling  himself  in 
danger  of  death,  from  which  he  recoils  and  against  which 
he  protests.      The  danger  brings  before  him   the   thought 


V 


526   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

of  his  relation  to  Jehovah,  his  l^lessedness  in  Him,  which 
he  cannot  think  of  being  interrupted. 

But  now  we  come  to  the  reconciliation  of  a  faith  of  this 
kind  with  the  fact  of  death  on  the  one  hand  and  with  the 
idea  of  death  just  described.  Such  a  faith,  indeed,  as  that 
just  described,  which  would  have  none  of  death,  and  resolutely 
bade  it  be  gone,  could  not  be  always  sustained  in  the  face 
of  the  inexora])le  fact.  The  expression  of  it,  whether  in 
the  Wisdom  books  or  in  the  Lyrics,  would  perhaps  only  be 
found  during  the  healthy  vigour  of  a  man  or  the  nation. 
A  decaying  nationality  or  a  dissolving  nature  could  not 
sustain  it.  It  is  a  faith  of  this  sort  to  which  the  Preacher, 
the  author  of  EcclesiasteSj  seeks  to  recall  himself  or  the 
people  in  the  declining  stages  of  the  commonwealth,  with 
but  little  success,  owing  to  the  overpowering  depression 
which  adverse  circumstances  laid  upon  his  own  heart  and 
that  of  the  nation :  "  Fear  God,  and  keep  His  command- 
ments "  (xii.  13);  and,  "There  is  nothing  better  for  a  man 
than  that  he  should  eat  and  drink,  for  this  is  his  portion 
from  God "  (ii.  24).  A  joyous  life  with  God  upon  the 
earth  was  his  theme.  But  the  times  were  too  late  for 
these  far-off  and  faint  echoes  of  a  stronger  time  to  be 
listened  to,  and  the  outlook  was  too  gloomy.  And  even 
long  before  this  time  it  could  not  fail  that  the  question 
of  Sheol  should  often  rise  and  demand  some  solution 
satisfying  to  the  reflecting  mind.  And  we  have  seen 
how  the  pious  Hebrew  was  enabled  to  analyse  what  we 
call  death,  and  rise  to  the  faith  that  it  involved  no 
separation  from   God,  according  to  the  old  idea  of  it. 

And  there  is  the  other  half  of  the  solution.  The 
Old  Testament  saint,  in  the  vivid  consciousness  of  the  life 
which  was  his  in  his  fellowship  with  God,  made  the  demand 
that  this  life  should  not  be  interrupted  by  death,  could  not 
think  of  it  as  thus  interrupted.  This  was  a  demand  for 
the  immortality  of  the  whole  man,  of  the  saint  in  the  unity 
of  his  being.  The  protestation,  too,  which  was  made  by 
him  when  he  had  to  face  the  fact  of  death,  that  dying  was 
not  death  in  the  popular  sense,  and  did  not  involve  separation 


RESTITUTION    OF    ISRAEL  527 

from  God,  was  a  demand  for  an  immortality  in  the  religious 
sense — of  the  soul.  But  this  latter  had  to  be  supplemented 
by  the  idea  of  the  participation  of  the  body  in  tlie  same, 
which  we  find  chietiy  in  tlie  prophetical  writings.  The 
one  was  the  natural  complement  to  the  other,  and  thus  the 
great  primary  demand  for  tlie  continuance  of  the  whole 
person  in  life  was  revealed.  This  idea  of  a  resurrection 
is  pursued  in  more  tlian  one  form  by  the  prophets.  It 
is  a  national  rather  tlian  a  personal  hope  at  first  and 
for  a  time.  First,  the  covenant  which  God  made  with 
Israel  was  a  national  covenant.  What  He  founded  was  a ' 
kingdom  of  God.  Tliis  was  eternal.  In  the  King  Messiah 
this  kingdom  would  be  universal  and  perfect.  The  indi- 
vidual saint  had  his  inmiortality  in  the  theocracy.  His 
great  interests  were  centred  in  it.  His  hopes  found 
realisation  there.  His  labours  were  perpetuated  in  it,  and 
his  spirit  lived  in  it,  even  if  he  died.  He  saw  the  good 
of  Israel.  But  this  immortality  of  his  hopes  and  purposes 
was  not  all.  In  liis  children  he  lived,  he  was  there  in 
them  furthering  God's  work,  enjoying  God's  favour.  So, 
too,  he  was  remembered  for  ever — "  the  memory  of  the 
just  sliall  be  in  eternal  remembrance  "  (Ps.  cxii.  6).  This 
is  the  kind  of  immortality  that  is  taught  in  the  Book  of 
Wisdom,  the  finest  of  all  tlie  apocryphal  writings. 

Yet  this  kind  of  immortality  in  the  perpetual  existence 
of  the  work  and  kingdom  of  God,  into  wliich  he  had  flung 
his  energies  and  in  which  his  spirit  lived,  must  have  been 
felt  by  the  individual  to  be  too  shadowy  to  satisfy  his 
heart.  The  individual  man  struggles  against  the  idea  of 
being  a  mere  drop  in  the  general  stream  of  humanity,  and 
claims  a  place  for  himself.  The  doctrine  that,  though  the 
leaves  fall  off,  the  tree  remains  undying,  does  not  satisfy  the 
individual  demand  for  life.  This  demand  for  a  place  for 
the  individual  life  was  expressed  in  the  doctrine  of  the  V 
restitution  of  Israel. 

It  was  natural,  as  has  been  said,  that  the  prophets, 
whose  minds  were  always  directed  rather  to  the  whole 
community  than  to  individuals,  should  bring  up  this  side 


528       THE  THEOLOGY   OF   THE   OLD   TESTAMENT 

of  the   idea  of   life.     Israel   in  fellowship  with   Jehovah 
would  have  lived  for  ever  as  a  people ;  but,  like  Adam, 
Israel     transgressed    the    covenant    and    died :     "  When 
Ephraim  offended  in  Baal,  he  died,"  says  Hosea  (xiii.  1). 
And    all     the     prophets     downwards    are    familiar    with 
Israel's    dissolution.       But    with     the     sentence    of    dis- 
solution  came   also   the    promise    of    restitution.      Hosea, 
who  employs  the  figure  of  death  for  the  dissolution,  uses 
the  figure  of  resurrection  for  the  restoration :  "  Let  us  re- 
turn unto  the  Lord :  after  two  days  He  will  revive  us ; 
and  the  third  day  He  will  raise  us  up,  and  we  shall  live  in 
His  sight "  (vi.  2).      The  power  of  death  over  them  was  to 
be  destroyed :  "  I  will  redeem  them  from  the  power  of  the 
grave :  I  will  redeem  them  from  death :   0  death,  I  will  be 
thy  plagues :  0  grave,  I  will  be  thy  destruction"  (xiii.  14). 
These   things   may  be  said  here  of  the  people ;    but   the 
language  seems  to  imply  that  the  idea  of  a  resurrection  of 
individuals  was  famiUar.     The  great  prophecy  of  Ezekiel 
also  concerning  the  valley  of  dry  bones  probably  refers  to  a 
resurrection  of  the  members  of  the  nation  scattered  and 
wasted  in  every  land,  and  their  reconstitution  into  a  living, 
united  body ;  for  the  people  say :  "  Our  bones  are  dried, 
we  are  cut  off  for  our  parts."     But,  as  in  Hosea,  the  idea  of 
a  resurrection  of  individuals  lies  under  the  imagery.      And 
in  other  prophets  the  idea  deepens,  and  that  which  these 
prophets  say  of  the  people,  which  seemed  to  them  in  its 
disjointed,  wasted  state  to  be   like  dried  bones  scattered 
over  the  valleys,  is  said  with  immediate  reference  to  indi- 
viduals on  whom  death   has   passed.      The  restitution  of 
Israel  embraces  also  all  Israel  of  the  past.      This  view  ap- 
pears in   Isa.  xxvi.,  but  most  fully  in  Daniel :  "  At  that 
time  thy  people  shall  be  dehvered,  every  one  that  is  found 
written  in  the  book.     And  many  of  them  that  sleep  in  the 
dust  of  the  earth  shaU  awake,  some  to  everlasting  life,  and 
some  to  slianie  and  everlasting  contempt.      And   they  that 
be  wise  shall  shine  as  the  brightness  of  the  firmament;  and 
they  that  turn  many  to  righteousness  as  the  stars  for  ever 
and  ever  "  (Dan.  xii.  1). 


DESTINY    OF    THE    WICKED  529 

But  before  we  close,  it  may  be  in  place  to  refer  to  other 
aspects  of  the  case  which  are  of  great  interest.  One  of 
these  is  the  relation  of  the  Old  Testament  ideas  to  the 
question  of  the  destiny  of  the  wicked.  On  this  subject 
several  views  are  current. 

There  is  the  universalistic  view,  according  to  which 
all  shall  be  restored.  Then  there  is  the  view,  stopping 
sliort  of  this,  which  demands  a  place  of  repentance  and 
sphere  of  development  beyond  the  grave,  and  which, 
assuming  many  gradations  of  salvation,  finds  a  place  for 
at  least  most  of  the  race.  And  there  is  the  view  which 
calls  itself  that  of  conditional  immortality,  according  to 
which  those  finally  and  persistently  evil  shall  be  annihilated. 
These  views  are  in  addition  to  the  one  which  has  been 
generally  accepted.  Now,  of  course,  such  questions  will 
not  be  decided  on  Old  Testament  ground,  but  in  the  light 
of  the  clearer  revelation  of  the  New  Testament.  I  do 
not  wish,  therefore,  to  speak  with  great  decision  on  such  a 
question ;  but  my  impression  is,  that  the  whole  scope  of 
the  Old  Testament  is  in  favour  of  the  ordinary  opinion. 
In  all  those  Psalms  wliich  have  been  alluded  to,  faith  in 
the  future  sustains  itself  by  planting  its  foot  on  the 
present.  The  view  of  the  Old  Testament  saint  is  chiefly 
confined  to  the  present, — the  future  is  to  him,  so  far  as  he 
himself  is  concerned,  and  so  far  as  the  wicked  are  con- 
cerned, but  the  prolongation  of  the  present.  Salvation 
was  to  him  a  present  good.  The  moral  constitution  of  tlic 
world  exhibits  itself  on  all  its  sides  here.  This  is  the 
very  postulate  of  tlie  thought  of  the  Hebrew  mind,  and 
the  fundamental  idea  of  the  Old  Testament  theocracy. 
Whatever  principles  are  involved  in  the  relations  of  God 
and  man,  exhibit  themselves  in  life  here.  So  much  is 
this  the  case,  that  any  deviation  from  this  position  whicli 
occurs,  as  in  the  prosperity  of  the  ungodly  or  the  adversity 
of  the  just,  occasions  extreme  disiiuiotude.  And  it  is 
obviated  by  the  reflection  tliat  it  must  be  brief,  that  at 
least  in  death  the  true  relations  of  God  and  men  will 
exhibit  themselves  ;  and  what  is  after  death  is  but  the 
34 


530   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

prolongation  of  what  precedes  it.  No  doubt,  in  the  Book 
of  Job  this  principle  is  assailed  by  Job  on  both  its  sides, — 
necessarily  on  the  side  of  tlie  just, — for  he  was  a  just 
man,  and  on  this  side  he  would  never  see  good ;  but  he 
carries  the  same  principle  out  on  the  other  side,  giving 
examples  of  men  ungodly  and  yet  dying  in  peace,  and 
honoured  by  imitation  at  least  after  death.  Yet  as  Job 
expresses  Ids  assurance  of  seeing  God's  face  after  death, 
this  might  seem  to  carry  also  the  opposite,  that  the  wicked 
would  have  no  such  vision. 

But  Scripture,  l)oth  in  the  Old  Testament  and  the 
New,  is  chiefly  interested  in  pursuing  the  destiny  of  the 
just.  This  is  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case.  For 
the  representations  which  are  given  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment of  death  and  Sheol  are  not  strictly  Scripture 
teaching.  They  are  the  expressions  of  popular  feeling, 
though  all  classes  of  men,  pious  and  evil  alike,  are  repre- 
sented as  giving  utterance  to  them.  The  revelation,  or 
the  Scripture  teaching  itself,  consists  rather  in  the  efforts 
of  faith  to  rise  above  them.  The  consequence  of  this  is, 
tliat  the  Old  Testament  doctrine  of  the  future  life  is 
one-sided.  The  doctrine  is  developed  only  so  far  as  it 
concerns  the  righteous ;  it  is  left  entirely  undeveloped  as 
concerns  the  wicked.  In  Ps.  xlix.  the  wicked  are  brought 
like  sheep  into  Sheol,  and  Death,  personified  as  a  keeper, 
shepherds  them ;  but  no  further  exposition  of  their  destiny 
appears.  In  Isa.  xxiv.  21  it  is  said  that  the  Lord  will 
"  punish  the  host  of  the  high  ones  on  higli,  and  the  kings 
of  the  earth  upon  the  earth.  And  they  shall  be  gathered 
together,  as  prisoners  are  gathered  in  the  pit,  and  shall  be 
shut  up  in  the  prison,  and  after  many  days  they  shall  be 
visited."    But  the  meaning  of  this  visitation  is  very  obscure. 

Such  passages  require  to  be  carefully  looked  at.  They 
probably  contain  germs  wliich  were  afterwards  more  fully 
developed.  But  that  is  tlie  most  that  can  be  said  of  tliem. 
Between  the  close  of  the  Old  Testament  Canon,  indeed,  and 
the  Christian  era,  the  doctrine  as  it  concerns  the  destiny  of 
the  evil  seems  to  have  received  expansions.     These  expan- 


IDEA    OF    GEHENNA  531 

sioiis  appear  in  tlio  paral)le  of  the  Eicli  Man  and  Lazarus, 
and  in  the  New  Testament  expression,  tlie  "(ieheniia  of 
fire."  This  Gclieuna  was  properly  oriL^inally  Gc  Hiniiom, 
the  valley  of  Hinnoni,  used  as  a  burial-place,  or  a  ])lace 
where  impurities  were  burned.  The  last  words  of  Isaiah 
have  been  brought  into  connection  with  this :  "  They  shall 
go  forth,  and  look  upon  the  carcases  of  tlie  men  that  liave 
transgressed  against  Me:  for  their  worm  sliall  not  die, 
neither  shall  tlieir  fire  be  (pienched ;  and  they  sliall  be  an 
abhorring  unto  all  llesh  "  (Ixvi.  24).  This  is  a  remarkable 
passage.  The  circumstances  are  those  of  the  final  felicity 
of  the  Church, — here,  those  that  are  represented  as  looking 
on  the  carcases  of  the  wicked ;  there,  the  carcases  of  the 
wicked,  which  are  represented  as  exposed  to  unceasing 
corruption  and  consumption  by  fire.  Tliis,  however,  is 
something  that  is  represented  as  transpiring  not  in  Sheol, 
but  on  the  face  of  the  earth :  the  godly  go  and  look  upon 
the  evil ;  and  it  is  their  carcases.  The  destruction  of  the 
transgressors  is  complete,  and  men  shudder  at  and  abhor 
their  remains.  But  any  question  of  a  further  kind  is  not 
answered.  The  representations  in  the  Old  Testament  are 
generally  of  this  fragmentary  kind,  and  it  requires  skill 
and  fairness  when  one  seeks  to  combine  them,  or  draw 
general  inferences  which  fit  into  more  advanced  revelation 
from  them.  So  far  as  the  Old  Testament  is  concerned,  a 
veil  is  drawn  over  the  destiny  of  the  wicked  in  death ; 
they  descend  into  Sheol ;  death  is  their  shepherd ;  tliey 
die  in  the  old  sense  of  death,  and  nothing  further 
seems  added  in  regard  to  them.  I  think  there  is  no  indi- 
cation of  any  aggravation  of  misery  or  positive  torment 
being  their  lot  in  the  Old  Testament ;  neither  is  there  any 
indication  that  their  personahty  in  Sheol  ceases,  or  that 
they  are  annihilated. 

In  reading  the  Old  Testament,  we  must  rememl)er  that 
it  is  a  book  of  beginnings.  Thoughts  of  God  never  thou^lit 
before  are  showing  themselves ;  presentiments  in  regard  to 
man  and  his  destiny,  hopes  or  dreams  in  regard  to  life, 
are  seen  rising  up  from  the  deepest  heart  of  the   pious, 


532   THE  THEOLOGY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 

like  air-bells  to  the  surface.  The  life  and  immortality 
brought  to  light  in  the  gospel  are  being  reached  from  many 
sides,  in  fragments,  and  many  times  only  by  the  arm  of 
faith  reached  out  and  striving  to  grasp  them  as  brilliant 
rainbow  forms.  In  the  Old  Testament,  truth  has  not  yet 
attained  its  unity.  But  everywhere  in  it  the  ground  of 
hope  or  assurance  is  the  spiritual  fellowship  already  enjoyed 
with  God.  Our  Lord's  argument,  "  God  is  not  the  God  of 
the  dead,  but  of  the  living,"  is  the  expression  of  the  whole 
spirit  of  the  Old  Testament  on  this  great  subject.  The 
temple  of  truth  is  not  yet  reared,  perhaps  the  idea  of  it 
hardly  conceived  in  its  full  proportion.  Yet  everywhere 
workmen  are  employed  preparing  for  it,  and  all  around 
there  He  the  exquisite  products  of  their  labour ;  and  here 
we  may  see  one  laying  a  foundation,  and  there  one  carving 
a  chapiter,  and  there  another  wreathing  a  pillar  or  polishing 
a  corner-stone,  working  singly  most  of  them,  able  only  to 
take  in  the  idea  of  the  one  piece  on  which  he  is  engaged, 
till  the  master-builder  comes  in  whose  mind  the  full  idea 
of  tlie  temple  bodies  itself  forth,  and  at  whose  command 
each  single  piece  of  workmanship  arises  and  stands  in  its 
fit  placa 


NOTES   OF   LITERATURE. 


I.  Biblical  Theology  and  the  Theology  of  the 
Old  Testament  generally. 

Ammon,  C.  F.,  Bihlische  Theologie,  Erlangen,   1792,  2  Aufl.  1801-2, 

3  vols. 

Bauer,  G.  L.,  Theologie  des  Alien  Testaments,  Leipzig,  1796  and  1800-2, 

4  vols. 

Zachariae,  G.  T.,  Bib.  Theologie,  4  Theile,  1772-75. 

Bauer,  G.  L.,  Bihlische  Moral  des  Alten  Testaments,  Leipzig,  1803-5, 

2  vols. 
Kaiser,   G.    Ph.    Ch.,   Die   bihlische   Theologie,   oder  Judaismus   unci 

Ghristianismus,  Erlangen,  1813-21,  2  vols. 
De  Wette,  W.  M.  L.,  Biblische  Dogmatik  Alten  und  Neuen  Testaments, 

oder  kritische  Darstellung  der  Religionslehre  des  Hehraismus,  des 

Judenthums  und  des  Urchristentums,  Berlin,  1813  ;  3  Aufl,  1831. 
Baumgarten-Crusius,  L.  F.  D.,  Grundziige  der  biblischen  Theologie, 

Jena,  1828. 
CoLLN,  D.  VON,  Biblische  Theologie  ;  hrsg.  von  D.  Scliiilz,  Leipzig,  1836, 

2  vols. 
Vatke,  W.,  Die  Religion  des  Alten  Testaments  in  der   Geschichtlichen 

Entwickelung  ihrer  Prinzifien  dargestellt,  Berlin,  1835. 
Bauer,  B.,  Die  Religion  des  Alten  Testaments,  Berlin,  1838  ff.,  2  vols. 
Knapp,  J.  G.,  Biblische  Glauhenslehre,  Halle,  1840. 
Beck,  J.  T.,  Die  christliche  Lehrwissenschaft  nach  den  bihliscJien  Ur- 

kunden,  1  Theil,  Stuttgart,  1841  ;  2  Aufl.  1875. 
Steudel,  J.  Ch.  F.,  Vorlesuwjen  iiher  die  Theologie  des  Alten  Testaments ; 

hrsg.  von  Oehler,  Berlin,  1840. 
Oehler,  G.  F.,  Prolegomena  zur  Theologie  des  Alten  Testaments,  Stuttgart, 

1845. 
Havernick,    H.    a.    C.,    Vorlesungen    iiber    die    Theologie    des    Alten 

Testaments  ;  hr.«g.  von  Halm  mit  Vorwort  von  Dorner,  Erlangen, 

1848  ;  also  2  Auflage  mit  Anmerkcng  von  Hermann  ScliuUz, 

Frankfort  a.  M.  1863. 

Lutz,  J.  L.  S.,  Bihiisriic  DogiiKiiik  ;  lirsg.  von  Ruetschi,  mit  Vorwort 

von  SchueckenLuBger,  Pforzheim,  1847,  2  Ausg.  1861. 
633 


534  NOTES    OF    LITERATURE 

NoACK,  L.,  Die  biblische  Theologie.     Einleitung  ins  A.  u.  ATT,  Halle, 

1853. 
ScHULTZ,  Hermann,  Alttestamentliche  Theologie,  Die  Offenharungsrelvjion 
auf  Hirer  vorchristl.  Entynckelungsstufe,  Frankfort  a.  M.  1860, 
2  vols.  ;  2  Aufl.  1878,  1  vol. ;  5th  ed.,  Gottingen,  1896  ;  English 
translation  (from  4th  ed.)  by  J.  A.  Paterson,  2  vols.,  Edinburgh, 
1892  (T.  &  T.  Clark). 

HoFMANN,  J.  Ch.  K.  von,  Der  Schriftbeioeis,  Nordlingen,  1852-55, 
2  Theile  ;  2  Aufl.  1857-60. 

EwALD,  H.,  Die  Lehre  der  Bibel  von  Goft,  oder  Theologie  des  alien  und 
neuen  Bundes,  4  parts,  Leipzig,  1871-76  ;  also  an  English  trans- 
lation of  the  first  volume  by  T.  Goadby  under  the  title  of 
Revelation,  its  Nature  and  Record,  Edinburgh,  1884  (T.  &T.  Clark). 

Oehler,  G.  F.,  Theologie  des  alten  Testaments,  2  vols.,  Tubingen,  1873, 
1874  ;  3  Ausg.  hrsg.  von  Th.  Oehler,  Stuttgart,  1891 ;  also 
English  translations  by  Ellen  D.  Smith  and  Sophia  Taylor, 
2  vols.,  Edinburgh,  1874,  T.  &  T.  Clark,  and  George  E.  Day, 
2nd  ed..  New  York,  1884. 

Bennett,  W.  H.,  The  Theology  of  the  Old  Testament,  London,  1896. 

DiLLMANN,  A.,  Handhuch  der  alttestamentlichen  Theologie.  Aus  dem 
Nachlass  des  Verfassers  hrsg.  von  R.  Kittel,  Leipzig,  1895. 

Duff,  A.,  Old  Testament  Theology ;  or,  The  History  of  the  Hebrew  Religion 
from  the  year  800  B.C.,  London,  1901. 

Duff,  A.,  Theology  and  Ethics  of  the  Hebrews,  London,  1892. 

Grau,  D.  R.  F.,  Gottes  Volk  und  sein  Gesetz.  Bruchstiicke  einer  biblischen 
Theologie  Alten  Testaments,  Giitersloh,  1894, 

LoTZ,  W.,  Geschichte  und  Offenbarung  im  Alten  Testament,  2  Ausg., 
Leipzig,  1892. 

ScHLOTTMANN,  K.,  Kompendium  der  biblischen  Tlieologie  des  Alten  und 
Neuen  Test.  ;  hrsg.  von  E.  Ktihn,  2  Ausg.,  Leipzig,  1895. 

Driver,  S.  R.,  Sermons  on  Subjects  connected  with  the  Old  Testam^niy 
London,  1892. 

HiTZiu,  F.,  Vorlesungen  iiber  biblische  Theologie  und  messianische  Weissa- 
gungen  des  Alten  Testaments  ;  hrsg.  von  Kneucker,  Karlsruhe, 
1880. 

PiEFENBRiNG,  Ch.,  Theologv^  de  VAncien  Testament,  Paris,  1886; 
English  translation  by  G.  H.  Mitchell,  New  York,  1893. 

Kayser,  August,  Die  Theologie  des  Alten  Testaments  in  Hirer  geschicht- 
lichen  Entivickelung  dargestellt  ;  hrsg.  von  K.  Marti,  1894. 

RiEHM,  Ed.,  Alttestamentliche  Theologie  ;  hrsg.  von  K.  Pahncke,  Halle, 
1889. 

Smend,  S.  R.,  Lehrbuch  der  alttestamentlichen  ReligionsgeschicJite,  Freilnirg 
u.  Leipzig,  1893. 

Foster,  R.  V.,  Old  Testament  Studies;  an  Outline  of  Old  Testament 
Theology,  Chicago,  1890. 

Gabler,  J.  P.,  De  justo  discrimine  theologian  biblicce  et  dogmaticcBy  1787. 


NOTES   OF    LITERATURE  535 

Davidson,  A.  B.,  paper  on  "Biblical  Theolojjjy  "  in  his  pyihiical  and 

Literary  Esmys,  LoikIoii,  1902. 
Kahler,   M.,   article   on    "Biblisclie   Theologie "   in   Herzog's  Eeal- 

Encyclopiidie,  2nd  ed. 

II.  The  History  and  the  Religion  of  Israel. 

Baudissin,  W.  W.,  Studien  zur  semitischen  Religionsgeschichte,  Leipzig, 

1876-79. 
Wellhauskn,  J.,  Prolegomena  zur  Geschichte  Israel,  Berlin,  1883. 
DiESTEL,  L.,  Geschichte  des  Alien  Testamentes  in  der  christlichen  Kirche, 

Jena,  1869. 
Hengstenberg,  E.  W.,  Geschichte  des  lieiches  Gottes  unter  dem  Alien 

Biiiide  ;  also  Englisli  translation  in  Clark's  "  Foreign  Theological 

Library,"  Edinburgh. 
KuENEN,    A.     Religion   of  Israel,  Haarlem,    1869 ;    Eng.   tr.   3  vols. 

1875. 
MoNTEFiORE,  C.  G.,  Religion  of  the  Ancient  Hebrews,  Hibbert  Lecture, 

1893. 
Chantepie  de  la  Saussaye,  Lehrh.  der  Religionsgeschichte,  2nd  ed. : 

Religion  oj  Israel,  by  Valeton,  1897. 
Oesterley,  W.  O.  E.,  "  The  Development  of  Monotheism  in  Israel," 

Expositor,  vi.  6,  p.  93. 

III.  God  and  the  Divine  Names  (additional  to 

literature  referred  to  on  p.  52). 

On  '■^Jehovah,"  etc. 

Dillmann's  Note,  Commentary  on  Genesis,  p.  74  (T.  &  T.  Clark). 

Skipwith,  G.  H.,  "The  Tetragrammaton "  in  Jewish  Quarterly  Review, 

X.  p.  662. 
■  Gray,  G.  B.,  article  on  "  Names  "  in  E7icyc.  Bill.  iii.  3320  ff. 

Blau,  Das  altjiidische  Zauherive.^en  (1898). 

Stade,  in  Gesch.  d.  Volkes  Israel,  vi.  1,  130  ff. 

Pinches,  "Yaand  Jawa  in  Assy ro-Baby Ionian  Inscriptions"  in  Pro- 
ceedings of  Soc.  of  Bibl.  Archaeology,  1.  jjp.  1-13. 

KONIG,  "  The  Origin  of  the  Name  rtin',"  Expository  Times,  x. 

HoMMEL,  Ancient  Hehreio  Tradition,  115. 

Wellhausex,  J.,  Skizzen,  iii.  169. 

Lagarde,  p.,  Mitteilungen,  p.  96  tf.  (1884) 

Davidson,  A.  B.,  article  on  "  God  "  in  ])ict.  of  Bible,  ii.  p.  199  (Clark). 

KuENEN,  Religion  of  Israel,  Eng.  tr.  1874. 

KoNiG,  Hauptprobleme  der  altisr.  ReligionsgescJiichte,  1884. 

Sellin,  Beitrdge  zur  semit.  Religionsgeschichte,  1896-97. 

HUNNIUS,  C,  Natur  u.  Char.  Jahves  nach  d.  vordeut.  Qnellen  d.  Bilcher 
Genesis-Konige,  Strassbui'g,  Heitz. 


536  NOTES    OF    LITERATURE 

KoxTG,    E.,  "War  'Jalive'  eiiie  Kaiia'aiiiiische  (Tottlieit  "^ ",  in  Neue 

Kinhl.  Ztsrh.  13. 
Weber,  II.,  "  Die  altU*st.  Schiilziing  d.  Gottesnamens,-'  in  Deutsch- 

Anier.  Zhvhr.f.  Tlirol.  n.  Kiirhe,  3. 
Johns,  (■.    H.   W.,    "  Thf   Name  Jehovah   in    the   Abrahamic   Age," 

Expositor,  vi.  8,  p.  1282. 

0/i  "  Elohim,^'  etc. 

Fleischer,  Kleine  Schriften,  i.  154  If. 

Delitzsch,  Franz,  Note,  Commentary  on  Genesis,  p.  48  (1887)  (Clark). 

NoLDEKE,  article  in  Zeitsch.  d.  Monj.  Gesell.  xi.  174. 

DiLLMANN,  Note,  Commentary  on  Genesis,  i.  1  (Clark). 

Nestle,  article  in  Tlieol.  Stud,  cms  Wiirt.  p.  243  ff.  (1882). 

Baethgen,  Beitrdye,  271  and  297  ff. 

Gray,  G.  B.,  article  on  "  Names,"  EncycL  Bibl.  iii.  3323. 

On  "  Lord  of  Hosts." 

Gray,  G.  B.,  article  in  Encycl.  Bibl  iii.  3328. 

LiiHR,  Untersuchuivjen  zum  B.  Amos,  37  ff.  (1901). 

Kautzsgh,  articles  in  Ztsch.f.  altt.  Wiss.  vi.  17  ff.,  and  in  Real-Encycl. 

f.  Protest.  Theoloyie,  xvii.  423  ff. 
Smend,  Altt.  Reliyionsgesrhichte,  2nd  ed.  p.  202. 
Wellhausen,  J.,  Israel,  u.  jiid.  Geschichte,  3rd  ed.  p.  25. 

IV.  Typology,  Prophecy,  and  the  Prophets. 

Fairbairn,   Patrick,    Prophecy    viewed    in  respect   of  its  distinctive 

Nature,  its  special  Function^  and  proper  Interpretation^   Edin- 
burgh, 1856. 
Lee,    Samuel,    An   Inquiry    into   the  Nature,   Proyress,   and  End  of 

Prophecy,  in  three  Books,  Cambridge,  1849. 
Davison,  John,  Discourses  on  Prophecy,  6th  ed.,  Oxford,  1856. 
HoFMANN,  J.  Ch.  K.  von,    Wsissoyung  und  Erfiilluny,   Nordlingen, 

1841-44. 
Fairbairn,  Patrick,  The  Typology  of  Scripture,  viewed  in  Connection 

with   the  whole  Series  of  the  Divine  Dispensations,   Edinburgh, 

2  vols.  6th  ed.,  1876. 
KiRKPATRiCK,  A.  F.,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Prophets,  Cambridge,  1892. 
Bredenkampf,    C.    J.,    Gesetz     and     PropJteten.       Ein     Beitrag    zur 

alttestamentlvhen  Kritik,  Erlangen,  1881. 
Orelli,  C.  von.  Die  altt  est  amentliche  Weia^agung  von  der  Vollendung 

des  Reiches  Gottes  ;  P^ng.  tr. 
Delitzsch,  Franz,  Die  hiblisch-prophetische  Theologie,  ihre  Fortbildung 

durch  Chr.  A.  Grusius  una  ihre  neueste  Entioickelung,  1845. 
KoNiG,  F.   E.,  Der  Offenharungsheyriff  des  Alten   Testaments,  2  vols., 

Leipzig,  1882. 


NOTES    OF    LITERATURE  537 

Smith,  W.  R.,  Tlie  Prophets  of  Israel  and  their  Place  in  History  to  the 

Close  of  the  Eiijhth   Century^  Edinhnr^fh,   1882  ;    new  edition, 

with  Notes,  by  T.  K.  Gheyne,  1895. 
Maybaum,  S.,  Die  Entiouhhimj  des  israelilischeu  Prophetentums,  Berlin, 

1883. 
DuHM,  Bernh.,  Die  Theologie  der  Prophet  en  als  Grnndhuief/ir  die  inuere 

Entwiclcelumisyescliichte  der  israelitischcih  Reliijion^  l^.onn,  1875. 
KuENEN,  A,,  De  Profeten  en  de  profetie  in  Israel,  Leiden,  1875  ;  .also, 

The  Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel,  a  Historical  and  Critical 

Inquiry.     Translation  from  tlie  Dutch  by  A.  Milroy,  London, 

1897. 
Tholuck,  a..  Die  Propheten  und  ihre  Weissagungen,  2nd  ed.  1887. 
ScHWARTZKOPFF,  P.,  Die  ProphetiscJie  Offenharung,  1826. 
KoNiG,  F.  E.,  Das  Berufshewusstsein  der  Altt.  Propheten,  1900. 
EwALD,  H.,   Die  Propheten  des  Alten  Biindes,   (iJottinf^rmi^    18G7-68  ; 

English  tr.,  Commentary  on  the  Prophets  of  the  Old  Test.,  Lonilon, 

1875-81. 
KiTTEL,  R.,  Prophetic  und  Weissagung,  1 899. 
MiCHELET,  S.,  Israels  Propheten  als  Trmjer  der  Offenharung,  1898. 
Darmesteter,  J.,  Les  Prophkes  d.  Israel,  1892. 
CoRNiLL,  C.  H.,  Der  Israelitische  Prophetismus,  1896. 
CoRNiLL,  C.  H.,  The  Prophets  of  Israel ;  tr.  by  S.  F.  Corkran,  Chicago. 
Davidson,  A.  B.,  Old  Testament  Prophecy,  1903  (T.  &  T.  Olai-k). 
Davidson,  A.  B.,  "  Prophecy  and  Prophets  "  in  Diet,  of  Bible. 
Smith,  W.  R.,  and  T.  K.  Cheyne,  article  on  "Prophetic  Literature" 

in  Encycl.  Bib.  iii.  3853  fF. 

V.  On  Messianic  Prophecy  and  particular  Prophets. 

RiEHM,  Ed,,  Die  Messianische  Weissagung,  Gotha,  1875  ;  also  English 

tr.,  Messianic  Prophecy  (T.  &  T.  Clark),  2nd  edition,  1900. 
Briggs,  C.  a..  Messianic  Prophecy,  1886  (T.  &  T.  Clark). 
Stanton,  V.  H.,  The  Jeivish  and  Christian  Messiah,  1886  (T.  &  T.  Clark). 
Woods,  F.  H.,  The  Hope  of  Israel,  1896  (T.  &  T.  Clark). 
VoLZ,  p..  Die  vorcxilische  Jahwe-prophetie  u.  der  Messias,  1897. 
HiJHN,  Die  Messianischen  Weissagungen,  1899. 

Delitzsch,  Franz,  Messianische  Weissagungen  in  gescht.  Folge,  1890, 
DiLLMANN,  A.,  Die  Propheten  des  alten  Bundes  nach  ihrer  politischen 

Wirksamh'it,  1868. 
BoHL,    E.,    Ghristologie    des    Alten    Testamentes,    oder    AusJegung    der 

vrichtigsten  Messianischen  Weissagungen,  Wien,  1882. 
Charles,  R.  H.,  "  The  Messiah  of  0.  T.  Prophecy  and  Apoc.  and  the 

Christ  of  the  N.  T."  in  Expositor,  6tli  Series,  5. 
Duhm,  B.,  "Das  Buch  Jesaia  iibersetzt  u.  erklart,"  Nowack's  Hand- 

Kommentar  ?..  AT. 
Giesebrecht,  F.,  Der  Knecht  Jahves  d.  Deuterojesaia,  Beyer,  Konigsberg. 


538  NOTES    OF    LITERATURE 

Davidson,  A.  B.,  articles  on  "The   Tlieolo^y  of  Tfaiah/'  Expository 

Times,  vols.  v.  and  vi. 
Davidson,  A.  B.,  article  on  "Jeremiah  "  in  Did.  of  Bible. 
Erbt,    W.,    Jeremia   und  seine   Zcit.  1902,    Gottingen,  Vandenhoeck 

und  Ruprecht. 
Hackspill,  M.,  "  La  vocation  de  Jereniie,"  Bull,  de  Litt.  Ecclesiastique, 

1902. 
Pluddemann,    R.,    "Jeremias    u.    s.    Zeit.,"    Deutsch- Amerihanische 

Zeitschriftf.  Theol.  u.  Kirche,  1902. 
Marti,  Der  Prophet  Jeremia  von  Anatot,  1F89, 
Davidson,  A.  B.,  "  The  Prophet  Amos,"  Bib.  and  Lit.  Essays,  London, 

1902. 
pROCKSCH,  0.,   Geschichtsbetrachtung  und   Geschichtsiiberlipferung,  b.  d. 

vorexilischen  Propheten,  1902,  Leipzig,  Hinrichs. 
Meyer,  F.  B.,  Sacharja  d.  Prophet  d.  Hoffnuntj,  Hagen,  Rippel. 
Davidson,    A.   B.,    "The    Prophet   Hosea,"  Bibl.   and    Lit.    Essays, 

London,  1902. 
BoEHMER,    "  Grundgedunken   der  Predigt  Hosea"  in  Zfsrhr  f.  wiss. 

Theol.  1902. 
Smith,  W.  R.,  and  Cheyne,  T.  K.,  "Obadiah"  in  Encycl.  Biblica. 
BuDDE,  "  Nahum  "  in  Encycl.  Biblica. 
Selbie,  J.  A.,  "Zephaniah"  in  Diet,  of  Bible. 
Nowack,  "  Zechariah  "  in  Diet,  of  Bible. 

On  the  Poetical  Books. 
MuLLER,  EuGEN,  Der  echte  Hiob,  1902,  Rehtnicyer,  Hannover. 
Delitzsch,  Fried.,  "  Das  Buch  Hiob,"  Neu  ubersetzt  u.  kurz  erklart, 

1902,  Leipzig,  Hinrichs. 
Krieger,  H.,  "  D.  Leiden  d.  Gerechten "  in  D.  B.  Hiob  im  Lichte  d. 

NT,  Wehlau,  Fock. 
KiRKPATRiCK,  A.  F.,  "  The  Book  of  Psalms  "  (Cambridge  Bible). 

VI.  Covenant. 

Davidson,  A.  B.,  article  in  Diet,  of  Bible. 

Guthe,  H.,  De  foederis  notione  Jeremiana,  Leipzig,  1877. 

Kraetzschmar,  Die  Bundesvorstellumj  im  Alt  Test.,  Marl>urg,  1896. 

DiLLMANN,  A.,  Handb.  d.  altt.  Theol.  pp.  107  ff.,  419  ff. 

Smend,  Lehb.  d.  Altt.  Religionsgeschichte,  pp.  24  ff.  and  294  ff. 

ScHULTZ,  H.,  0.  T.  Theology,  Clark's  tr.  ii.  p.  166. 

Riehm,  E.,  Altt.  Theol.,  p.  68  ff. 

Valeton,  Ztschr.  f.  altt.  Wiss.  xii.  xiii. 

VII.  Atonement  ;  Day  of  Atonemen  r,  etc. 

Stade,  Geschichte  d.  Volkes  Israel,  vi.  2. 

ScHULTZ,  II.,  0.  Test.  Theology,  i.  p.  307  ft'.,  ii.  p.  402  ff. 


NOTES    OF    LITERATURE  539 

Delttzrch,  Fr.,  article  in  Riolim's  llandwHrterhuch  d.  hihl.  Alferthums. 
RiTSCHL,  Alb.,  Jh'e  chriKtl.  Lclire  roti  d.  lurltf/rrfiiiuiKi  u.  d.  rrrsoJinuny, 

vol.  ii. 
Weiss,  B.,  Bihliml  Theol.  of  N.  7'.,  vol.  i.  p.  419  ft".,  and  vol.  ii.  p.  202  ft'. 
Thomasius,  G.,  Chn'sfi  Pciiioii  and  JTerk. 
Smith,  W.  R.,  on  -)S3,  Old  Test,  in  Jeiv.  Church,  p.  43  ft'.,  and  2nd  ed. 

p.  381  ft'. 
Driver,  S.  R.,  article  on  "  Propitiation  "  in  Did.  of  Bible. 
RiEHM,  E.,  Der  B&jriff  der  Siihne  im  Al\  1877. 
NowACK,  Archcioloijie,  iii.  220. 

Davidson,  A.  B.,  article  on  "  Atone  "  in  Expositor,  Aug.  1899. 
DiLLMANN,  A.,  Commentarij  on  Leviticus,  cliap.  iv.  20. 
CuRTiss,  S.  I.,  "The  Semitic  Sacrifice  of  Reconciliation'  in  Expusiti/r^ 

4tli  Series,  6. 
Paterson,  W.,  article  on  "  Sacrifice  "  in  Diet,  of  Bible. 


VIII.  Doctrine  op  Man. 

Riedel,  W.,  "Die  Gottesebenbildliclikeit  d.  Menschen,"  Altt.  Unter- 

such'uuyeu,  Lei])zig,  1902. 
CuRTiss,    S.    I.,    "  Tlie    Pliy.sical    Relation    of    Man    to    God   among 

Semites  "  in  American  Journal  of  Theology,  \i. 
Roos,  M.  F.,  Fundamenta  Psycholoyue  ex  S.S.  collect ce,  1762. 
Olshausen,  H.,  Opuscula  Theologica,  1834. 

Beck,  J.  T.,  Urnriss  der  bibl.  Seelenlehre,  1843,  1871  ;  Eng.  tr.  (Clark). 
Delitzsch,  Franz,  System  der  bibl.  Fsychologie,  1861  ;  Eng.  tr.  (T.  &  T. 

Clark)  1867. 
Wendt,  H.  ii.,  Die  Begrife  Fleisch  und  Geist  im  bibl.  Sprachgebrauch. 
Heard,  J.  B.,  l^he  Tripartite  Nature  of  Man,  1882. 
Ellicott,  C.  J.,  The  Destiny  of  the  Creature,  1883. 
White,  E.,  Life  in  Christ,  1878. 
Dickson,  W.  P.,  St.  PauVs  use  of  the  terms  Flesh  and  Spirit,  1883. 

IX.  Eschatology. 

Keicher,  "  Die  Eschatologie  des  Hiob  "  in  Der  Katholik,  82. 

Beer,  G.,  D.  biblische  Hades,  Tiibingen,  Molir. 

Umbach,    S.    L.,    "  Lehre    d.    Unsteibliclikeit    im   AT"   in   Deutsck- 

Aiiiericanische  Ztschr.f.  Theol.  v.  Kin  he,  3. 
WiJNSCHE,    "Die  Poesie  des   Todes   im  alttest.  Sclirifttum,"  Ilaiipt's 

Deutsch-evang.  Blatter. 
Schwally,  Fr.,  Leben  nach  deni  Tode. 

Davidson,  A.  B.,  article  on  "Eschatology  of  O.  T."  in  Diet,  of  Bible. 
Boettcher,   De  Injeris,  1846. 

Oehler,  G.  F.,  Vet.  Test.  Sent entia  de  rcbaspost  niorfemfuturis,  1846. 
ScHULTZ,  H.,  Voraussetzungen  der  christl.  Lehre  v.  d.  Unsterblichkeit,  1868. 


540  NOTES   OF   LITERATURE 

Davidson,  A.  B.,  "  Modern  Religion  and  O.  T.  hnmortaWty"  Expositor, 
May  1895;  and  Biblical  and  Theol.  Essays,  London,  11)02. 

Salmond,  8.  D.  F.,  Christian  Doctrine  of  Immoriality,  5th  ed.  1903 
(T.  &  T.  Clark). 

ScHREiNER,  J.,  Elysium  u.  HadeSy  Braunschweig,  Sattler. 

Schmidt,  F.,  Die  Unsterblichkeits-  u.  Aiiferstehungsglaube  in  d.  Bibel, 
Brixen,  Buchh.  d.  Kath.-pol.  Pressvereins. 

NoWACK,  W.,  D.  Zukunftshoffnungen  Israels  in  d.  Assyr.  Zeit.,  Fest- 
schrift f.  Holtzmann,  Tubingen,  Mohr. 

CocoRDA,  0.,  "  L'immortalita  dell'  aninia  nell  Archico  Testamento" 
in  Riv.  Crist.  1902. 

Charles,  R.  H.,  "  The  Rise  and  Development  in  Israel  of  the  Belief 
in  a  Future  Life,"  Expositor,  vi.  7,  p.  49. 

X.  Miscellaneous. 
Priesthood. 

Baudissin,  W.  W.,  Dit  Geschichte  des   altt.   I'riesterthums  untersucht, 

Leipzig,  1889. 
Benzinger,  1.,  Hebrdische  Archdologie,  1894,  vol.  ii.  pp.  405-28. 
Nowack,  W.,  Lehrbuch  der  heb.  Archdologie,  1894,  vol.  ii.  pp.  87-138. 
ScHURER,  E.,  Geschichte  des  jiidischen  Volkes  im  Zeitalter  Jesu  Christi, 

3rd  ed.  1898,  ii.  pp.  214-99  ;    Eng.  tr.,  History  of  the  Jewish 

People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ,  1885-90. 

Angels. 

Davidson,  A.  B.,  article  in  Did.  of  Bible. 

Hackspill,  "  L'angelologie  juive  a  I'epoque  neo-testamentaire "  in 
Rev.  bibl.  internationale,  IL 

Faith,  etc. 

LuTZ,  W.,  Bib.  Dogmatik,  p.  312. 

ScHULTZ,  H.,  " Gerechtigkeit  ans  dem  Glanhen  im  AT  and  NT"  in 

Jahrb.  f.  deutsche  Theologie,  1802,  p.  510. 
Warfield,  B.  B.,  article  on  "  Faith  "  in  Diet,  of  Bible. 
Davidson,    A.   B.,  "  The  Wisdom  of  the   Hebrews,"  Bibl.   and  Lit. 

Essays,  London,  1902. 
Skinner,  J.,  article  on  "  Righteousness  "  in  JHct.  of  Bible. 
Boehmeh,    Jul.,    jO.    alttest.     Unterbau    d.    Reiches   Gottes,    Leijizig, 

Iliuricha. 


INDEX  OF  SCRIPTURE  PASSAGES. 


Genesis. 


CHAP. 

i.  3. 

i.  26 
i.  31 
ii.  5 
ii.  7 
ii.  18 
iv.  1 
iv.  26 
V.  24 
vi.  5 
vi.  14 
x.-xi. 
xi.  7 
xvi.  5 
xvii,  1 
xviii.  2i 
xx.-xxiii. 
xxii.  16 
xxiii.  7 
xxiii.  9 
xxiii.  20,  21 
xxiii.  20-23 
xxiii.  23  . 
xxiv.  5     . 
xxvii.  23-33 
xxxi.  11,  12 
xxxi.  49  . 
xxxii.  1  ff. 
xxxii.  10 
xxxii.  30 
xxxii.  34 
xxxiii.  9,  10 
xxxiii.  14 
xxxiii.  15 
xxxiii.  20 
xxxviii.  2G 
xxxix.  9  . 
xlv.  27     . 
xlvi.  3,  4 
xlvii.  18  . 
xlviii.  16 


PAGES 
99 

129,  295 
.  205 
.     205 

121,  194,  412 
.  205 
.  53 
.50,  68 
.  442 
.  219 
.  327 
.  28 
.  295 
.  79 
39,  68 

130,  213 
.  17 
.  107 
.  266 
.   56 

37,  116 
.  297 
.  112 
.  219 
.  334 
.  116 
.  179 
.  323 
.  134 
.  297 
.  297 
81,  334 

297,  334 
.  112 
.  81 
.  267 
.  213 

118,  197 
.  Ill 
.  188 
.     297 


ExoDirs. 


CHAP. 

i.  7,  9 
ii.  10 
iii.  1  ff. 
iii.  6 
iii.  9 
iv.  2-4 
iv.  11-14 
iv.  12 
V.  3 
vi.  3 
vii.  15 
XV.   11 
xviii.  11 
xix.  6 
XX.  2 
XX.  4 


vi.  7 

xvii.  11    . 
xviii.  26-28 
xix.  31     . 
xxiv.  11-16 
xxvi.  1     . 
xxvi.  34  . 
xxvi.  43 
xxviii.  28 


i.  Iff. 
i.  6. 
vi.  2-12 
xiv.  1  ir. 
xiv.  13-20 
xvi.  1  if. 
xvi.  5 
xvi.  22 
xvi.  40 
XX.  12.  13 


Leviticus. 


PAGES 

46 
53 
69 
448 
50 
67 
40 
405 
51 
39 
81 
63 
52 

153,  242 
.   23 

111,  465 


32.^ 


11 


321 

352 
3-JS 
349 
48 
111 
246 
240 
147 


45 
39 
349 
335 
334 
219 
154 
8,  418 
336 
256 


541 


542 


INDEX    OF    SCRIPTURE    PASSAGES 


N  u  M  u  1':  Ks  — continued. 

1 

2  Samuel — continued. 

CHAP. 

I'AGES 

t'lIAV. 

PAGES 

xxii.  22,  23      . 

. 

.     300 

xii.  2.0      .... 

.       37 

XXV.  1  ff. 

. 

.     323 

xxi.  Iff.. 

.     331 

XXV.  32,  33       . 

. 

.     331 

xxiv.  1  ff. 

.     175 

XX  vii.  16. 

• 

.     418 

xxiv.  11  . 
xxiv.  16  . 

.       25 

.     297 

Deuteronomy 

1  Kings. 

ii.  23 

^ 

.       24 

iv.  8 

209 

viii.  46     . 

217,  277 

iv.  37       . 

360 

X.  5 

.     118 

V.  26 

190 

xi.  14,  23,  25  . 

.     300 

vi.  4 

360 

xii.  19      . 

.     210 

ix.  26,  29 

333 

XV.  19      . 

.     239 

xxi.  8 

330 

xviii.  21  . 

.       51 

xxvi.  14  . 

32 

xix.  5 

.     296 

xix.  10     . 

.       88 

Joshua. 

xxii.  20-22       . 

.     302 

iii.  10      . 

. 

.       81 

2  Chronicles. 

ix.  1  ff.    . 
ix.  15       . 

• 

175,  331 
.     239 

xxviii.  23          .         .         . 

94,  102 

xxiv.  14  . 

• 

.       98 

Nehemiah. 

Judges. 

iii.  37      ...        . 

.     227 

iii.  10      . 

123,  198 

ix.  37       . 

.     188 

iv.  11 

.       52 

Job. 

v.  2 

24 

V.  4,  5      . 

.       51 

i.  6 

.     300 

vi.  34 

.     123 

i.  8. 

.     275 

vii.  18      . 

.     242 

i.  21 

.     477 

viii.  23     . 

.       25 

iii.  11-19 

.     478 

ix.  1  ff.     . 

.       24 

iii.  17,  19 

.     428 

ix.  37       . 

.       32 

iii.  20       . 

.     199 

xi.  23,  24 

.       93 

iv.  17 

.     268 

xi.  29       . 

.     123 

iv.  17-19 

.     192 

xiii.  25     . 

.      198 

iv.  18       . 

.     298 

xiv.  6 

1 

Samuel. 

.*      123,  198 

V.  1 

V.  6,  7     . 
vii.  6 
vii.  11      . 

.     2'.)5 
.     454 
.     479 
.     199 

ii.  6 

,        , 

.     123 

vii.  21      . 

.     425 

iii.  18       . 

.     179 

ix.  12       . 

.     209 

viii.  20     . 

.       24 

ix.  15       . 

.     268 

XV.  22      . 

.     261 

ix.  20       . 

.     268 

xvi.  14     . 

.     302 

X.  10-16  . 

.     482 

xviii.  10  . 

.     124 

X.  21,  22. 

.     483 

xxvi.  19  . 

64,  94,  330 

X.  22,  23  . 

.     428 

xxviii.  13 

.     100 

xi.  7 

77,  82 

xxviii.  19 

.     428 

xii.  10     . 

.     118 

xiii.  26    . 

.     275 

2 

Samuel. 

xiv.  1  ff.  . 
xiv.  1-3  . 

.     480 
.     218 

vi.  6,  7     . 

,        , 

.     179 

xiv.  7 

.     425 

vii.  12      . 

, 

.     371 

xiv.  13    . 

.      271,  483 

xii.  1        , 

,        , 

.       25 

xiv.  21     . 

.     502 

xii.  7       . 

. 

. 

.     180 

XV.  14      . 

.     192 

INDEX    OF    SCRIPTURE    PASSAGES 


543 


Jon— conlitntcd. 

PsA  LM.s — coviinncd. 

CHAP. 

TAGEH 

CHAP.                                                                                   PAORS 

xvi.  16     . 

.     485 

xxxix.  14          ....     499 

xvi.  20     . 

.     284 

xli.  1  ir.  . 

.     355 

xvii.  1 

.       118,  197,  271 

xliv.  9      . 

.     242 

xvii.  3      . 

.     485 

xliv.  22    . 

.      411 

xvii,  7 

.     273 

xlvi.  10    . 

.       76 

xix.  25     . 

.      42(),  48!) 

xlix.  1  ir. 

.     462 

xix.  26     . 

.     490 

li.  1  11".      . 

.      234 

xxi.  16-34 

.     284 

li.  4 

.     213 

xxi.  17-20 

.     220 

li.  9 

.      321,  328 

xxiii.  14  . 

.     490 

li.  10 

.     232 

xxiii.  21  . 

.     329 

li.  11        . 

.     124 

xxiv.  1  11. 

.     491 

li.  17        . 

.     197 

xxvi.  5     . 

.     426 

Ixv.  3       . 

.      320,  321 

xxvi.  9     . 

.     121 

Ixxi.  16   . 

.     233 

xxvii.  3    . 

.     195 

Ixxii.  16  . 

.     272 

xxvii.  5,  6 

.     270 

Ixxiii.  1  [\. 

.     461 

xxxii.  8   . 

.     422 

Ixxiii.  12-M 

.     358 

xxxiii.  4  . 

.     122 

Ixxiii.  23 

4,  412 

xxxiv.  5  . 

.     275 

Ixxiii.  25 

.     412 

xxxiv.  14 

.      122,  201 

Ixxvi.  13 

.     426 

xxxiv.  15 

.     122 

Ixxviii.  38,  39 
Ixxix.  9   . 

\      U 

)1,  320.  332 
.     322 

PSALI 

us. 

Ixxxii.  6  . 
Ixxxv.  3  . 

.  100 
.     321 

iv.  1 

.     274 

Ixxxvi.  13 

.     428 

iv.  5 

.     269 

Ixxxviii.  10 

.     430 

vi.  5 

.     431 

Ixxxviii.  12 

.     427 

vii.  8 

.     274 

Ixxxix.  6 

.     294 

viii.  1 

.       37 

Ixxxix.  48 

.     427 

viii,  5 

.     100 

xc.  1  ff'.    . 

.     443 

viii.  6 

.     294 

xc.  8 

.     328 

ix.  7 

.       31 

xci.  11     . 

.     293 

ix.  10       . 

.       75 

xciv.  1  (F. 

.       79 

xi.  7 

.     143 

xciv.  5-11 

.       33 

xiv.  Iff.. 

.       31 

xeiv.  17   . 

.     426 

XV.  Iff'.. 

.     276 

xcvi.  10-13 

.     375 

XV.  13      . 

.     118 

xcvii.  1  ff. 

3,  370,  375 

xvi.  Iff.. 

.     443 

xcvii.  7    . 

.     295 

xvi.  5-7  . 

.     415 

cii.  13      . 

.     374 

xvi.  8 

.     412 

cii.  24 

.     441 

xvi.  10     . 

.     200 

ciii.  3 

.     191 

xvii.  1  [1. 

.     484 

ciii.  20     . 

.     295 

xvii.  15    . 

.       82 

civ.  4 

.     292 

xviii.  20  . 

.     274 

civ.  29,  30 

122,  195 

xviii.  31  . 

.       66 

cix.  34     . 

.     328 

xxiv.  1  ir. 

.     226 

cxii.  b 

.     407 

xxvii.  4    . 

.     413 

cxxx.  2    . 

.     277 

xxix.  1  if. 

.      113,  293 

cxxx.  3    . 

.     217 

XXX.  5 

.     336 

cxxxix.  1  ir. 

180,  227 

xxxi.  3     . 

.     200 

cxxxix.  18 

.     412 

xxxii.  1    . 

.     327 

cxlii.  4     . 

.     425 

xxxii.  5   . 

.     337 

cxliii.  1    . 

.     134 

xxxii.  18 . 

.     320 

cxiiii.  2   . 

217,  277 

xxxiv.  7  . 

.     293 

cxliii.  3   . 

.     267 

xxxvii.  1  ir. 

.     459 

cxliii.  4   . 

118,  197 

xxxvii.  1-8 

.     459 

cxliii.  10. 

.     120 

xxxix.  13 

.     425 

cxlix.  2    . 

.    876 

544 


INDEX    OF    SCRIPTURE    PASSAGES 


u 


Pkoveii 

\Mi. 

1 

Isaiah— coy 

tinucd. 

CHAP.                                                                              PAGES 

CHAP. 

PARES 

xi.  13 198 

xxix.  13  . 

.     229 

xii.  28      . 

452 

xxix.  14  . 

.     119 

XV.  13      . 

197 

xxix.  23  . 

.     156 

xvi.  16     . 

328 

xxxi.  3     . 

83,  117,  190 

xvi.  18     . 

198 

xxxiii.  3  . 

.     290 

xvi.  19     . 

198.. 

xxxiii.  22 

.     116 

xvi.  31     . 

. 

4^2 

xxxv.  1    . 

.     272 

xviii.  10  . 

75 

xxxvi.  19 

.     364 

XXX.  2      . 

. 

151 

xxxviii.  11 

.     427 

XXX  viii.  17 

.     321 

ECCLESIASTES. 

xxxviii.  88 

.     320 

xl.  2         .          .         . 

113,  162,  334 

iii.  21 197 

xl.  5 

.       56 

vii.  8 198 

xl.  6 

.     190 

xii.  7       .         .         .      197,  201,  424 

xl.  7 

.     190 

XX.  5        .         .         .         .      427,  428 

xl.  9 

.       56 

xl.  10       .         .         . 

.     385 

Isaiah. 

xl.  13,  14 

77,  82,  120 

xl.  22       . 

.     164 

i.  2 210 

xl.  25,  26 

33,  79,  151,  165 

i.  21 

.     264 

xl.  27       .         .         . 

.      121,  274 

ii.  3 

.     383 

xii.  5       . 

.     266 

ii.  6 

.     376 

xii.  8,  9  .        170,  1 

"2,  251,  320,  389 

ii.  10-12 

.     375 

xii.  10      . 

.     271,  389 

ii.  11 

.     229 

xii.  11      . 

.     144 

iv.  3,  4 

.     154 

xii.  14      . 

.     108 

iv.  12 

.     198 

xii.  17     . 

.     167 

v.  4 

.     198 

xii.  21      . 

.     103 

v.  16 

135,  155 

xii.  25      . 

.     164 

v.  20 

.     205 

xii.  29      . 

.       65 

vi.  5 

151,218 

xiii.  1       . 

.      143,  394 

vi.  8 

.     109 

xiii.  6      .         .       1 

44,  271,  393,  396 

vi.  10 

.     229 

xiii.  10     . 

.     168 

vii.  1 

.     229 

xiii.  13     . 

.     150 

viii.  13 

.     156 

xiii.  13-17        . 

.     385 

viii.  14 

.       26 

xiii.  19    . 

.     141 

viii.  19 

32,  430 

xliii.  3     . 

.     164 

X.  5 

U 

J5,  286,  390 

xliii.  4     . 

.     170 

X.  17 

.     149 

xliii.  6     . 

.      136,  164 

X.  22 

.     135 

xliii.  9     . 

.     266 

xi.  2 

.     125 

xliii.  10  . 

.      105,  390 

xi.  3 

.     133 

xliii.  20  . 

.      166,  266 

xiii.  1-6 

.     379 

xliii.  25  . 

.      161,  173 

xiii.  9 

.     378 

xliv.  6  ff. 

.     105 

xiii.  13 

.     378 

xliv.  22   . 

.     321 

xiii.  18, 

19       .* 

.     267 

xiv.  1,  4  . 

.     163 

xiv.  1  tr. 

.     428 

xiv.  6       . 

.     105 

xiv.  9 

.      426,  427 

xiv.  7       . 

.     302 

xiv.  10 

.     427 

xiv.  9       . 

.     164 

xix.  4 

.     198 

xiv.  9-12 

.     131 

Kix.  25 

.       65 

xiv.  13    . 

.     144 

xxiv.  1- 

20        ! 

.     378 

xiv.  14     . 

.     262 

xxiv.  21 

.      530,  429 

xiv.  15     . 

.       78 

xxiv.  22 

.     305 

xiv.  17     . 

.     375 

xxvi.  19 

.      450,  528 

xiv.  88     .         .       1 

05,  143,  166,  271 

xxix.  1 

.       25 

xiv.  22     . 

.     385 

xxix.  10 

.     119,  198 

xiv.  23    . 

.      102,  106 

INDEX    OF    SCRirXURE    PASSAGES 


545 


Isaiah — continued. 

Jehem  1  AH— cwt^mwcc?. 

CHAP. 

rAGES 

fllAl-.                                                                              l-AGES 

xlv.  24,  25 

.     141 

ii.  11 65 

xlvi.  3      . 

.     173 

iii.  1         .         .         . 

65 

xlvi.  i)     . 

.     105 

iii.  14       .         .         . 

.     215 

xlvi.  13   . 

.     141 

iv.  1 

65 

xlvii.  6    . 

.     173 

iv.  3,  4     . 

216,  364 

xlvii.  9    . 

.     173 

V.  23        .         .         . 

.     230 

xlviii.  9-11 

.     333 

V.  24        .         .         . 

.     175 

xlviii.  14 

.     390 

vii.  4        .         .         . 

.     362 

xlviii.  16 

.     128 

vii.  9        .         .         . 

.     362 

xlviii.  20 

.     172 

vii.  21,  22 

.     251 

xlix.  3     . 

.     262 

ix.  26       . 

.     230 

xlix.  8-12 

.     393 

X.  14 

65 

xlix.  11    . 

.     164 

xii.  23      . 

.     216 

xlix.  15,  16      . 

.      165,  172 

xiii.  11     . 

.     245 

xlix.  22    . 

.     108 

xiii.  23     . 

.     141 

1.  1  . 

.     172 

xiv.  22     . 

.     175 

1.  4 . 

.      364,  394 

XV.  1          . 

335,  362 

1.  4-9       . 

.     138 

XV.  10      .         .         . 

.     363 

1.  7,  8      .         . 

.      267,  393 

xvi.  13     .         .         . 

.       95 

li.  2 

.     171 

xvii.  1  ir. 

.     132 

li.  4,  5     . 

.      142,  263 

xvii.  7-10 

218,  230 

li.  6 

.      143,  264 

xviii.  15  . 

.       65 

lii.  10      . 

.     108 

xviii.  23  . 

321,  327 

liii.  1,  2  . 

.     263 

xxiii.  6    . 

.     280 

liii.  5 

.     373 

xxiv.  7    . 

.     230 

liii.  10     . 

.     174 

xxxi.  3    . 

.     250 

liv.  3 

.     141 

xxxi.  9    . 

.     245 

liv.  6        . 

.     128 

xxxi.  29-34      . 

.     283 

liv.  7,  8  . 

113,  170,  172 

xxxi.  33  . 

.     230,  364 

liv.  9 

.     162 

xxxi.  34  . 

248,  282 

Iv.  3 

.     263 

xxxiv.  1  ir. 

.     240 

Ivi.  1 

.     271 

xlvii.  4,  5 

24 

Ivi.  5 

.     407 

xlviii.  46 

93 

Ivii.  15     . 

.      118,  229 

xlix.  1      .         .         . 

.       93 

Ivii.  16     . 

.      119,  197 

Iviii.  2     . 

.     136 

Lamkntations. 

lix.  9        . 

.     136 

lix.  12  tr. 

.     142 

iii.  22      ....         .       27 

Ix.  1 

.     366 

V.  7 358 

Ix.  1-3     . 

139,  262,  264 

Ix.  10       . 

.     265 

Ezekiel. 

Ix.  21       . 

.     141 

Ixi.  1,  2  . 

.     263 

i.  11 188 

Ixi.  10      . 

.     142 

iii.  14       .         .         . 

.     199 

Ixiii.  7     . 

.     170 

viii.  1       .         .         . 

.     199 

Ixiii.  9     . 

.     297 

xiv.  1  If.  . 

.     221 

Ixiii.  10,  11      . 

.      12.5,  148 

xviii.  1  11". 

.     221 

Ixv.  17     . 

144,  384,  414 

xviii.  4     .         .         , 

.     358 

Ixv.  22     . 

.     449 

XX.  1  IF.    . 

.     333 

Ixvi.  24   . 

430,  431,  531 

XX.  5        .         .         , 

.     171 

XX.  7        .         .         , 

.     110 

Jerem 

[AH. 

xxiii. -xxviii.    ,         , 

.       38 

xxviii.  1  fr.       . 

.     147 

ii.  2 

.     154 

xxviii.  22          ,         . 

.     156 

ii.  3 

245 

xxx.  13    . 

,       65 

ii.  5          .        . 

.       65 

xxxii.  21-23     . 

.     426 

ii.  7         .        . 

.     242 

xxxiii.  10,  11  . 

.     322 

35 


546 


INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURE   PASSAGES 


EzEKiEh— continued. 

1 

Amos 

— continued. 

CHAP. 

PAGES 

CHAP. 

PAGES 

xxxvi.  20 

.     256 

V.  7 

. 

32 

xxxvi.  26 

189 

V.  18 

377 

xxxvii.  1 

ff.  ;    ; 

196 

V.  21-24  . 

7 

xxxvii.  9 

121 

V.  24 

261 

xxxvii.  12 

370 

vi.  8 

155 

xxxviii.  1 

6       ! 

256 

vii.  4-6 

334 

xxxviii.  2 

8       . 

147 

ix.  7 

113 

xxxix.  7  . 

149 

ix.  8 

334 

Daniel. 

Obadiah, 

iv.  8,  9    . 

.     150 

15-17 

378 

V.  11 

150 

18-19       . 

.        I 

383 

vii.  14 

267 

viii.  13     . 

295 

MiCAH. 

xi.  16       . 

131 

xii.  1-2    . 

450,  528 

ii.  7 

. 

119 

ii.  8 

124 

Hose  A. 

iv.  1 
iv.  5 

383 
90 

i.  7-9       . 

56,  242 

iv.  13 

65 

iv.  2 

.     11>8 

vi.  4 

23 

iv.  12       . 

119 

vi.  6-8 

251 

V.  4 

247 

vi.  8 

'.     26 

1,  276 

vi.  2 

449 

vi.  10 

130 

vi.  6 

251 

vii.  18 

217 

vi.  7 

247 

vii.  19 

.     321 

viii.  1 

247 

viii.  6 

65 

Habakkuk. 

X.  12 

151 

xi.  1 

261 

i.  12 

• 

149 

xi.  9 

155 

iii.  1  ff. 

•           •           • 

.    377 

xii.  13 

.       23 

xiii.  1 

449,  528 

xiii.  4 

23,  65 

Zephaniah. 

xiii.  14 

.      449,  528 

i.  2-7 

. 

.     378 

i.  7-12 

. 

.     377 

Joel. 

Haggai. 

i.  14 

. 

.     146 

ii.  2 

, 

.     378 

ii.  5 

.     125 

ii.  15 

,        ,        , 

.     146 

ii.  23 

. 

.     139 

ii.  28-32 

. 

.     378 

ZECHAraAH. 

ii.  31 

. 

.     387 

i.  15 

.     136 

iii.  9 

. 

.     146 

iii.  1 

.       .       .       . 

.     300 

iii.  1  ft'. 

, 

.     373 

Amos. 

iii.  1-5 

•           . 

.     311 

iii.  3 

•           • 

.     301 

ii.  9 

23,  241 

vi.  11 

. 

.     311 

ii.  11 

. 

25,  242 

ix.  11 

. 

.     247 

iii.  1 

.     213 

xii.  1 

.     424 

iii.  2 

. 

.      135,  247 

xii.  10 

'.         '.       119,  198,  3( 

9,  373 

iii.  7 

•        .         . 

.     177 

xiv.  5 

. 

.     295 

iv.  2 

. 

.     155 

xiv.  10 

, 

. 

. 

.     383 

INDEX    OF   SCRIPTURE   PASSAGES 


547 


Malachi. 

CHAP. 

ii.  10 

. 

iii.  2,  3  . 

. 

iii.  6 

• 

Maithew 

xi.  27   . 

. 

xviii.  10  . 

,     , 

xxii.  32  . 

, 

xxvi.  53  . 

, 

xii.  26 


cvi.  23-28 


i.  18 
iv.  24 
vi.  63 
xiv.  11 
XV.  22 
xvii.  3 


ii.  31 
xvii.  27 
xvii.  29 
xvii.  30 


i.  19 

iii.  20 
iii.  25 
vii.  9 
viii.  10 
xi.  1  ff. 
xi.  26 


Mark. 


Luke. 


John. 


Acts. 


Romans. 


1  Corinthians 


viii.  4 
X.  20,  21 
XV.  17 

XV.  21 
XV,  45 
XV.  51 


TAOKS 

.  245 

.  377 

47,  113 

.   78 

.   81 

416,  448 

.  305 

.  448 

.  429 

.   81 

82 

422 

76 

352 

76 

.  448 

.   82 

.   80 

.  352 

.   80 

.  454 

.  337 

.  454 

.  448 

251,  272 

.  392 

.   66 

66 

432 

518 

422 

404 

2  Corinthians, 
(hap.  paoks 

vii.  ] 188 

xii.  9 223 


ii.  1 


Ephrsians. 


1  Thessalonians. 


435 


iv.  15 

. 

.  508 

v.  23 

1  Timothy. 

185,  419 

i.  16 


i.  8. 


James. 


1  John. 


223 


Hfrrews. 

i.  14 

. 

292 

iv.  12 

.   18 

6,  420 

vi.  10 

134 

X.  1-10 

355 

X.  22 

188 

xi.  1 

280 

xi.  6 

75 

xi.  10 

440 

xi.  16 

440 

xi.  19 

442 

279 


1.3. 

.   76 

i.  9. 

.  184 

iii.  2 

.   82 

iii.  8 

.  305 

iv.  1 

Revelation. 

.  306 

i.  8. 

. 

.  165 

APOCRYPHA. 

Wisdom  of  Solomon. 


ii.  23 


804 


INDEX   OF  MATTERS 


Abraham,  covenant  with,  98 ;  sprung 
from  a  family  in  a  low  condition  of 
religion,  98  ;  revelation  to,  99. 

Afterman,  the,  in  Job,  487. 

Angel  of  the  Lord,  116,  296  ;  Messi- 
anic elements  in,  298. 

Angels,  doctrine  of,  289  ;  various 
names  of,  293. 

Anger  of  God,  318,  323,  332,  336,  337. 

Animism,  42. 

Anthropomorphism,  108. 

Anthropopathic  expressions,  113. 

Ark  of  Covenant,  112. 

Atonement,  doctrine  of,  306 ;  term 
for,  319,  327  ;  sense  and  use  of 
term,  320,  327  ;  synonymous  terms, 
327  ;  extra-ritual  atonement,  320  ; 
the  atoning  subject,  321 ;  means  of 
atonement,  322,  325  ;  by  priest 
and  high  priest,  324  ;  principle  of 
atonement,  325  ;  classical  passage 
in  Leviticus,  325  ;  motives  of 
atonement,  330,  332,  337  ;  ritual 
use  of  term,  338 ;  ritual  atonement, 

349  ;  principle  of  ritual  atonement, 

350  ;  Ritschl's  view,  351  ;  Riehm's 
view,  351  ;  obscurity  as  to  prin- 
ciple of,  352  ;  principle  of,  in  New 
Testament,  355. 

A.ttributes  of  God,  82  ;  the  natural 
attributes,  160  ;  the  attributes  in 
later  prophecy.  161  ;  power,  163  ; 
redemptive  attributes,  169. 

Babylonian  exile,  27. 
Baudissin,  Prof.  W.  W.,  53,  257. 
Biblical     Psychology,     question    of, 

183  ;  in  the  New  Testament,  184  ; 

passages  supposed  to  bear  it  out, 

185;  in  Old  Testament,  188. 
Biblical  Theology,  its  idea,  1. 
Blood,  as  atoning,  325  ;  offering  of, 

353. 


Body,  use  of  term,  188. 
Breath  of  life,  423. 

Calamity,  problem  of,  455. 

Calling,  the  Divine,  172. 

Causation,  Hebrew  belief  in,  113  ; 
personal  agent  in  causation,  113. 

Cheyne,  T.  K.,  392. 

Coming  of  the  Lord,  507. 

Conditional  immortality,  doctrine  of, 
529. 

Consciousness  of  God,  170;  exhibited 
in  Ps.  cxxxix.,  181. 

Covenant,  use  of  term,  239  ;  nature  of 
covenant-relation,  240  ;  Jehovah's 
justice  or  righteousness  and  His 
covenant,  241  ;  covenant  made 
with  the  peojile  as  a  whole,  241  ; 
its  positive  character,  242  ;  Sinaitic 
covenant,  245  ;  moral  meaning  of 
the  covenant,  247  ;  idea  of  covenant 
subordinate  in  older  prophets, 
247  ;  interpretation  in  Epistle  to 
Hebrews,  248  ;  why  the  covenant 
with  Israel  only,  249  ;  conditions 
of  the  covenant,  251  ;  terms  de- 
scrii)tive  of  covenant-relation,  252. 

Covenants,  the  Divine,  179. 

Covering  of  sin,  320. 

Creation,  a  moral  work,  166. 

Creationism,  question  of,  227. 

Criticism,  textual,  literary,  and  his- 
torical, 28. 

Cyrus,  the  anointed  of  Jehovah,  390. 

Day  of  the  Lord,  force  of  the  term, 
374 ;  a  day  of  manifestation, 
375  ;  of  judgment  and  salvation, 
377 ;  attached  by  prophets  to 
different  events,  379  ;  as  an  epoch, 
381  ;  introduction  of  a  new  order 
of  things,  383 ;  as  set  forth  in 
Second   Isaiah,    384 ;  convulsions, 


548 


INDEX    OF    MATTERS 


540 


its  signs,  387  ;  its  religious  aspect 
on  the  pro])hets,  387. 

Deatli,  Old  Testament  idea  of,  433  ; 
Julius  Miiller's  view,  433 ;  tlie 
phrase  'dead  in  sins,'  435  ;  ideas 
of  death  in  science  and  in  Scripture, 
497  ;  state  of  the  dead,  499  ; 
acquiescence  in  death,  508  ;  protest 
against  death,  509  ;  analysis  of 
popular  idea  of,  510  ;  moral  mean- 
ing of,  511  ;  as  physical  fact,  513  ; 
eftects  of,  517  ;  as  penalty,  M9  ; 
essence  of,  520. 

Delitzsch,  Franz,  237,  392. 

Demons,  doctrine  of,  304. 

Deuteronomy,  Book  of,  its  character 
and  contents,  361. 

Diestel,  L.,  237. 

Dillmann,  A.,  39,  41. 

Dozy,  Professor,  44. 

Driver,  Canon  S.  R.,  53. 

Dwelling-place  of  Jehovah,  111  ;  yet 
no  local  god,  111. 

El,  meaning  of  term,  39. 

Election,  the  Divine,  171. 

El-Elyon,  40. 

Elini,  sous  of,  294. 

Ellicott,  Bishop  C.  J.,  184,  419. 

Eloach,  40. 

Elohim,  useof term,  39, 40 fl". ;  question 
of  its  plural  form,  99  ;  its  applica- 
tion to  angels  and  men,  99  ;  applied 
to  angels,  294. 

El  Shaddai,  39,  99. 

Enoch,  the  case  of,  442. 

Eschatology,  general  considerations, 
399  ;    two    kinds   of  eschatology, 

401  ;    eschatology   of   the   natiim, 

402  ;  peculiarity  of  Old  Testament 
view  of  future  life,  403  ;  War- 
burton's  view,  405. 

Ewald,  Heinrich,  309. 

Exile,  the,  27. 

Ezekiel,  Book  of,  its  contents  and 
order,  339  ;  its  doctrine  of  resto- 
ration, 342-346  ;  its  redemptive 
principles,  343  ;  comparison  be- 
tween its  ideas  and  those  of  the 
Law,  346. 

Fairbairn,  Patrick,  237. 

Faith,  Old  Testament  view  of,  278  ; 
not  abstract,  279  ;  faith  and  im- 
putation, 281. 

Fellowship  with  God,  fundamental 
idea,  415. 

First  and  Last,  use  of  term,  165. 

Flesh,  use  of  term,  189. 


Forgiveness,  doctrine  of,  315  ;  intel- 
lectual sins  of  ignorance,  315  ; 
intellectual  sins  of  high  hand,  316  ; 
various  expressions  for,  329  ; 
motives  to,  337. 

Galatinus,  Petrus,  47. 

Gehenna,  idea  of,  429,  531. 

(Jesenius,  "W.,  39. 

(Jod,  Old  Testament  doctrine  of,  its 
general  characteristics,  31  ;  its 
presuppositions,  31  ;  not  specula- 
tive, 31 ;  origin  of  idea  of  God,  31 ; 
idea  of  knowledge  of  God,  64  ; 
name  of  God,  75  ;  knowledge  and 
fellowship,  76  ;  God  in  Patri- 
archal age,  110  ;  localisations  of 
God,  110  ;  idea  of  God  in  Mosaism, 
110  ;  in  prophets,  161  ;  His  essence 
and  attributes,  82  ;  primitive 
Shemitic  idea  of,  96  ;  a  personal 
power,  97  ;  personality  of  God, 
106  ;  spirituality,  106  ;  righteous- 
ness, 129  ;  holiness,  106,  144  ; 
incomprehensibility  of  God,  77  ; 
avenues  of  knowledge  of  God,  78  ; 
unity,  96 ;  personality,  106  ; 
spirituality,  106 ;  righteousness, 
129  ;  God  of  Hosts,  165  ;  first  and 
last,  165  ;  His  relations  to  nature, 
174;  to  men,  175;  predetermin- 
ing, 176;  His  purpose,  177;  His 
covenants,  179. 

Godet,  Frederic,  303. 

Gods  of  heathen,  16  ;  how  regarded, 
65. 

Gunkel,  H.,  52. 

Haitmann,  E.  von,  44. 

History,  a  moral  operation,  168. 

History  and  the  knowledge  of  God, 
78. 

Hofmann,  J.  C.  K.  von,  237,  351, 
423. 

Holiness  of  God,  106 ;  sense  and 
application  of  terms,  144  ;  original 
use  of  'holy,'  145;  idea  of  holi- 
ness, 146  ;  as  used  of  God,  147  ; 
development  of  idea,  147  ;  ethical 
use,  148  ;  a'sthetic  use,  149  ;  ex- 
pression of  a  relation,  152  ;  in 
things  and  in  men,  253  ;  expres- 
sion of  relatiou  of  belonging  to 
God,  254  ;  elements  in  the  Divine 
holiness,  256. 

Hnjy,  original  use  of  term,  144  ;  as 
apjilied  to  men  and  t.(t  things,  145, 
116,  153,  154;  as  applied  to  Cod, 
145|  151  ;  as  used  of  Jehovah,  155; 


550 


INDEX    OF    MATTE-RS 


(lifTcrcnt  applications  in  the  pro- 
phets, 155. 

Holy  One  of  Israel,  sense  and  appli- 
cation of  term,  149,  164. 

Honnnel,  F.,  52. 

Hosts  of  heaven,  305. 

Hosts,  Lord  of,  165. 

Immortality,  doctrine  of,  402  ;  lack 
of  clearness,  411  ;  fellowship  with 
God  its  fundamental  idea,  415  ; 
the  corollary  of  religion,  416  ;  re- 
lation of  doctrine  to  that  of  man's 
nature,  417  ;  question  of  natural 
immortality,  439  ;  as  expressed  in 
the  Sixteenth  Psalm,  445  ;  opera- 
tion of  reflection,  449  ;  as  expiessed 
in  the  Seventy-third  Psalm,  461  ; 
life  and  immortality,  504  ;  in  the 
Forty-ninth  Psalm,  463  ;  in  the 
Seventeenth  Psalm,  465  ;  in  the 
Book  of  Job,  467. 

Imi>utation,  doctrine  of,  219  ;  rela- 
tion of  Old  Testament  to  it,  219  ; 
visiting  of  iniquities  of  fathers  on 
children,  220  ;  Old  Testament  view 
of  that,  221  ;  imputation  of  right- 
eousness, 281 ;  imputation  and 
suff"ering,  282. 

Individual,  the,  in  relation  to  God, 
283  ;  elevation  of  the  individual 
into  religious  prominence,  285. 

Individual  life,  problems  of,  359. 

Intercession,  acts  of,  335. 

Israel,  the  inner,  287. 

Jealousy  of  God,  149. 

Jehovah,  connections  of  the  name, 
45  ;  derivation  of,  45  ;  its  use,  46  ; 
origin  and  meaning,  49,  theory  of 
Midiauite  derivation,  50  ;  etymo- 
logy of,  53  ;  not  meta])hysical,  55  ; 
connotntion  of,  57  ;  the  God  of 
Israel,  58  ;  and  Elohim,  58  ;  histori- 
cal occasion  of  its  application,  67  ; 
in  what  sense  a  new  revelation,  71  ; 
what  the  name  supplied,  71  ;  His 
sole  Godhead,  100  ;  God's  highest 
name  in  Second  Isaiah,  102 ; 
dwelling-place  of,  111  ;  no  local 
god.  111  ;  His  rule  in  Israel,  how 
exercised,  116  ;  His  Spirit,  125  ; 
Lord  of  Hosts,  165  ;  sBsthetic  nature 
of,  347. 

Jeremiah,  his  prophetic  action,  362  ; 
interest  of  his  ])().sition,  362  ;  his 
special  teaching,  363. 

Job,  Book  of,  its  ])]an  and  contents, 
467  ;  its  ideas,    469 ;   relation   to 


Second  Isaiah,  471  ;  progress  in 
expression  of  Job's  mind,  473 ; 
inner  movement  of  the  drama,  475  ; 
the  witness  in  heaven,  485  ;  mental 
condition   described   in  the  book, 

477  ;  first  allusion  to  the  otlier 
world,  477  ;  problem  of  the  book, 

478  ;  distinction  between  God  and 
God,  481. 

Judgment,  principle  of  Divine,  134. 
Justification,  Old  Testament  idea  of, 
139,  281. 

Kautzsch,  E.,  398. 

Kingdom  of  God  :   in   Israel,   in  its 

growth,    3  ;    in  its  perfection,    3  ; 

its  consummation,  365. 
Kingship,  idea  of,  9. 
Kittel,  D.  R.,  52. 
Knowledge  of  God,  64,  76. 
Kbberle,  J.,  52. 
Kriiger,  G.,  398. 
Kuenen,  Abr.,  44. 

Last  Things,  doctrine  of.  See  Eschat- 
ology. 

Law,  idea  of,  280. 

Leimdorfer,  D.,  53. 

Life  Old  Testament  view  of,  413  ;  its 
issues,  437  ;  life  more  than  exist- 
ence, 437  ;  righteousness  and  life, 
440  ;  ideas  of  life  in  science  and  in 
Scripture,  496. 

Literary  criticism  of  Old  Test-ament, 
its  principles,  29  ;  its  limirtations 
and  results,  30. 

Man,  Old  Testament  doctrine  of, 
182  ;  distinct  from  lower  creatures 
by  creation,  194  ;  unity  of  man- 
kind, 224  ;  doctrine  of  man's  in- 
herited depravity,  225  ;  normal 
condition  of,  505. 

Margoliouth,  G.,  52. 

]\larti-Kayser,  41. 

JNlaurice,  F.  D.,  313. 

Messianic  elements,  in  idea  of  Angel 
of  the  Lord,  298  ;  Messianic  idea, 
357  ;  the  theocratic  king,  365  ;  the 
Suttering  Servant  of  the  Lord, 
365  ;  various  forms  of  the  Messianic, 
367  ;  different  periods  of,  367 ; 
subordinate  importance  of  age  of 
Hezekiah  and  i)erioil  of  Exile  in 
I'cgard  to  the  Messianic  hope,  371  ; 
Messianic  doctrine  in  relation  to 
Eschatology,  373  ;  the  Messianic  in 
Second  Isaiah,  372  ;  in  Zechariah 
and  Daniel,  373  ;  Jehovah  and  the 


INDEX   OF   MATTERS 


651 


Messiah,  385  ;  the  Suireriiig  Servant, 
392. 

Moiiolatry,  in  Sliemitic  relii^n'oii,  til. 

MoiioUicisiii,  nol>i(3W,  60  ;  thcoioliral, 
64  ;  Jcnciiiiah's  relation  to  it,  64  ; 
question  of  a  degeneration  of  Mono- 
theism or  a  rise  of  Monotheism  out 
of  Polytheism,  96. 

Moses,  60,  68,  110. 

Muller,  Julius,  225,  433. 

Name,  use  of,  among  Hebrews,  36 
idea  of  the  Divine  name,  37 
particular  names  of  God,  38 
Jehovah's  regard  for  His  name,  333. 

Name's  sake,  33. 

Natural  theology,  78. 

Nature  and  the  knowledge  of  God, 
79  ;  nature  not  confounded  with 
God,  96. 

Noldeke,  Th.,  39. 

Oehler,  G.  F.,  423. 

Old  Testament  dispensation,  false 
views  and  true,  2. 

Old  Testament  history,  its  course 
and  drift,  22. 

Old  Testament  theology,  studies  pre- 
liminary to,  5  ;  definitions  of  it,  6  ; 
a  historical  science,  6 ;  genetic, 
8  ;  a  development,  10  ;  a  jn-esenta- 
tion  of  the  religion  or  the  religious 
idea,  11  ;  practically  the  history  of 
the  religion  of  Israel,  11  ;  relation 
of  the  ideas  and  the  history,  12  ; 
divisions,  12. 

Ontological  argument,  79. 

Pantheistic  conceptions  strange  to 
Shemitic  mind,  97. 

Particularism  of  Hebrew  religion,  59. 

Personality  of  God,  106  ;  anthropo- 
morphic expression  of,  108. 

Personality  ol"  the  Spirit,  question  of, 
127  ;  passages  which  might  convey 
idea  of  a  distinct  hypostasis,  128. 

Philistines,  their  origin,  24. 

Potter  and  clay,  figure  of,  131. 

Power  of  God,  163  ;  in  nature,  163  ; 
in  histoiy,  164. 

Predetermination,  the  Divine,  176. 

Priest,  the,  sense  of  term,  307  ; 
character  and  functions  of,  308  ; 
high  priest,  310,  311. 

Priesthood,  doctrine  of,  307  ;  priest- 
hood of  ])eople,  307  ;  representa- 
tive priesthood  of  class,  308  ;  basis 
of  priestly  caste,  309  ;  function  of 
priestly  class,  310. 


Prophecy  and  Aj)ologetics,  101. 
Pn.j.hcts  of  Old  Testament,  20  ;  llicir 

view  of  liisl.ory,  21. 
Providcncie,  benevolent  and  punitive 

or  c.liastising,  299  ;  problems  and 

solutions,  453. 
Psvchology,   question  of  a   liiblical, 

183. 
Purpose,  the  Divine,  177. 

Redemption,  Old  Testament  doctrine 
of,  23.')  ;  the  covenant,  235  ;  re- 
demptive righteousness,  395  ;  doc- 
trine of,  235,  289,  306. 

Redemptive  attributes,  169  ;  love, 
170  ;  election,  171  ;  calling,  172  ; 
unchangeableness,  172  ;  confession, 
172  ;   free  grace,  173. 

Religion  of  Old  Testament,  historical, 

11  ;    relation   of  ideas  to  history, 

12  ;  great  periods  of,  15  ;  prophetic 
view  of,  21  ;  natural  chararter,  22  ; 
particularistic,  60  ;  how  and  when 
monotheistic,  60  ;  monolatrous 
stage,  61. 

Representation,  not  the  Old  Testa- 
ment rationale  of  penalty  destrcnd- 
iug  on  children,  220. 

Restoration,  idea  of,  in  later  pro- 
phets, 369. 

Resurrection,  doctrine  of,  443  ;.i)ro- 
duct  of  reflection,  449  ;  in  the 
prophets,  528 ;  its  climax  in 
Daniel,  528. 

Retribution,  Old  Testament  belief  in, 
409. 

Revelation,  14 ;  idea  of,  34  ;  oral 
and  continuous,  36  ;  chief  source 
of  knowledge  of  God,  80  ;  given  in 
symbolical  Ibrm,  237 ;  in  frag- 
mentary form,  237. 

Riehm,  E.,  243,  249,  351. 

Righteousness,  the  term,  395 ;  its 
various  applications,  395 ;  its 
relation  to  the  term  salvation, 
396. 

Righteousness  of  God,  129  ;  when 
ex})ressed  by  the  term,  130  ; 
lighteousness  and  sovereignty, 
131  ;  not  al)stract,  133;  princijilo 
of  judgment  in  it,  134  ;  in  respect 
of  God's  relations  to  His  ]ieo]ile, 
134  ;  in  respect  of  His  relations  to 
other  nations,  135  ;  in  relation  to 
Israel's  right,  138  ;  as  applied  to 
God's  redemptive  operations,  140; 
righteousness  as  salvation,  141  ; 
why  called  God's  righteousness, 
142 ;  Jehovah's  righteousuesii,  143 ; 


552 


INDEX    OF    MATTERS 


redemptive  right' onsiiess.  395  ; 
ri<^fliteousncss  as  salvation,  398. 

Kighteousnoss  in  the  |»e(>i>h',  257  ;  as 
obedience,  260  ;  as  goodness,  261  ; 
requirement  of  the  covenant-rehi- 
tion,  264  ;  radical  idea  of  righteous- 
ness, 265  ;  conformity  to  a  motive, 
271  ;  general  and  specitic  uses, 
273  ;  righteousness  and  grace,  275  ; 
righteousness  and  fjiith,  278. 

Ritschl,  A.,  351. 

Sabbath,  idea  of,  243. 

Sacrifice,  doctrine  of,  311  ;  questions 
regarding  origin  of  sacrifice,  311  ; 
primitive  idea  of  sacrifice,  312 ; 
Maurice's  view,  312  ;  Robertson 
Smith's  view,  313  ;  Wellhausen's 
view,  313  ;  Westcott's  view,  355. 

Sanctuaries,  112  ;  effect  of  destruction 
of,  158. 

Satan,  doctrine  of,  300  ;  instrument 
of  Jehovali,  303  ;  his  office,  304  ; 
development  of  idea  of,  305. 

Satisfaction  for  sin,  forms  of,  336,  337. 

Schultz,  Hermann,  34,  296. 

Scripture,  Old  Testament,  what  it 
is,  3  ;  as  the  word  of  God,  4. 

Servant  of  the  Lord,  365  ;  His  opera- 
tion and  method,  393. 

Shemitic  religion,  primary  form  of, 
43  ;  not  pantheistic,  97. 

Sheol,  the  term  and  its  derivation, 
425,  499  ;  relation  to  Assyrian 
Sualu,  426  ;  various  synonyms, 
427  ;  idea  of  Sheol,  428  ;  questions 
of  moral  distinctions  in  Sheol,  428, 
501  ;  condition  of  those  in  Sheol, 
430,  499  ;  no  topography,  500  ; 
hi  1  in  Sheol,  483. 

Shorter  Catechism,  212,  291. 

Sin,  Old  Testament  doctrine  of,  203  ; 
a  popular  doetiine,  not  a  scientific, 

204  ;  categories  of  good  and  evil, 

205  ;  variety  of  terms  for  moral 
evil,  207  ;  variety  of  conceptions  of 
sin,  207  ;  as  folly,  209  ;  as  scorn, 
210  ;  as  falsehood,  210  ;  as  unclean- 
ness,  210  ;  as  failure,  211  ;  as  un- 
righteousness, 211  ;  as  defined  by 
Westminster  standards,  212 ;  as 
offence  against  a  person,  213  ;  as 
defilement,  249  ;  in  relation  to 
the  nation,  215  ;  in  relation  to  the 
individual,  215  ;  in  relation  to 
doctrine  of  God,  217  ;  in  relation 
to  the  race,  217  ;  questions  of 
creationism  and  traducianism,  227  ; 
cousciousuess  of  sin,  228  ;  covering 


of  sill.  320;  various  expressions  of 
tlie  consciousness  of  sin  in  the 
]»i'ophets,  228  ;  sins  of  ignorance, 
228  ;  idea  of  sin  in  Amos  and 
Hosea,  228  ;  in  Isaiah,  229  ;  in 
Jeremiah,  230 ;  in  Fifty-first  Psalm, 
232. 
Sinfulness,   Old  Testament  view  of, 

217  ;    not  attrilnited  to  the  flesh, 

218  ;    as    seen    in    connexion    of 
individual   with    a    sinful   whole, 

219  ;  as  inherited  depravity,  229. 
Sins  of  ignorance  and  sins  of  high 

hand,  315. 

Smith,  W.  R.,  41,  313. 

Solidarity,  Hebrew  idea  of,  407. 

Sorrows  of  the  godly,  457. 

Soul,  use  of  term,  199  ;  widest  sense, 
199  ;  no  substantial  distinction 
between  soul  and  spirit,  200,  419 
soul  one  aspect  and  spirit  another 
of  same  thing,  202  ;  seat  of  sen 
sibilities,  202  ;  origin  of,  226. 

Soul  and  the  knowledge  of  God,  78. 

Sovereignty  of  God,  131. 

Sjarit,  use  of  term,  192 ;  primarj 
sense,  193 ;  extended  sense,  193  , 
withdrawal  of  spirit  is  death,  195  ; 
the  vital  spirit  coming  from  God, 
194  ;  source  of  life,  strength, 
energy,  198 ;  man's  spirit  and 
God's  Spirit,  421. 

Spirit  of  God,  doctrine  of,  115  ; 
foundation  of  idea,  117 ;  spirit 
within  God  Himself,  117  ;  general 
idea  of  spirit,  118  ;  source  of 
vitality  and  power,  119  ;  used  both 
of  temporary  and  of  permanent 
determinations  of  mind,  119  ;  an 
ex])ression  of  character,  119  ; 
activities  of,  120  ;  in  cosmical 
sphere,  120  ;  insj»here  of  life,  121  ; 
in  human  experience  and  history, 
123;  in  prophecy,  123;  in  in- 
tellectual gifts,  124  ;  in  moral  life, 
124  ;  Spirit  of  Jehovah  as  Jehovah 
Himself,  125  ;  distinction  between 
Spirit  of  God  and  Spirit  of  the 
Lord,  125;  question  of  personality 
of  the  Spirit,  127. 

Spirituality  of  God,  106. 

Spoer,  Hans,  52. 

Steudel,  J.  C.  F.,  81. 

Suffering,  development  of  thought 
on,  282  ;  problem  of,  284  ;  in  Job, 
286. 

Textual  criticism  of  Old  Testament, 
29. 


INDEX    OF    MATTERS 


553 


Theology  of  iho  Old  Testament, 
studies  1)1(1. iiiiiiaiy  to  it,  5; 
detinitious  of  it,  6  ;  a  historical 
science,  6  ;  genetic,  8  ;  a  develop- 
ment, 10  ;  a  presentation  of  the 
religioB  or  the  religious  ideas,  11  ; 
practicaMy  the  histoiy  of  the 
religion  of  Israel,  11  ;  relation  of 
the  ideas  and  the  history,  12 ; 
divisions,  12;  historical  }>criods, 
15  ;  not  a  theology  of  the  scliools, 
107. 

Theology  of  the  schools,  108  ;  its 
beginnings  in  Alexandrian  trans- 
lation of  Old  Testament,  and  the 
Chaldee  translations,  109  ;  seen  in 
later  Jewish  books,  109. 

Tradncianisni,  question  of,  227. 

Tiichotomy,  theory  of,  185. 

Trinity,  doctrine  of,  129. 

Tulloch,  Principal  John,  611. 


Tyler,  T.,  53. 

llncleanness,  removal  of,  317. 
Unity  of  God,  96. 

Universal    restoration,    doctrine    of, 
529. 

Vision  of  God,  Job's,  493. 
Vowel  signs  in  Hebrew,  47. 

Warburton,  Bishop  W.,  405. 
Warren,  President,  52. 
Weiss,  B.,  351. 
Wellhausen,  Julius,  313. 
Westcott,  Bishop  B.  F.,  355. 
Wicked,  destiny  of,  529. 
Wildeboer,  G.,  13. 
Wisdom  literature,  451,  525. 
Wrath,  the  Divine,  318,  323,  332, 
836,  337. 


AN  INTRODUCTION  TO 

The  Literature  of  tlie  Old  Testament 

By  Prof.  S.  R.   DRIVER,  D.D.,   D.Litt. 

Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford 

New  Edition  Revised 


Crown  8vo,  558  pages,  $2.50  net 


"It  is  the  most  scholarly  and  critical  work  in  the  English  lan- 
guage on  the  literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  fully  up  to  the 
present  state  of  research  in  Germany." — Prof.  Philip  Schaff,  D.D. 

"  Canon  Driver  has  arranged  his  material  excellently,  is  succinct 
without  being  hurried  or  unclear,  and  treats  the  various  critical  prob- 
lems involved  with  admirable  fairness  and  good  judgment." 

—Prof.  C.  H.  Toy. 

"His  judgment  is  singularly  fair,  calm,  unbiassed,  and  inde- 
pendent. It  is  also  thoroughly  reverential.  .  .  .  The  service, 
which  his  book  will  render  in  the  present  confusion  of  mind  on  this 
great  subject,  can  scarcely  be  overestimated." — The  London  Times. 

"As  a  whole,  there  is  probably  no  book  in  the  English  language 
equal  to  this  '  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament' 
for  the  student  who  desires  to  understand  what  the  modern  criticism 
thinks  about  the  Bible." — Dr.  Lyman  Abbott,  in  the  Outlook. 

"The  book  is  one  worthy  of  its  subject,  thorough  in  its  treat- 
ment, reverent  in  its  tone,  sympathetic  in  its  estimate,  frank  in  its 
recognition  of  difficulties,  conservative  (in  the  best  sense  of  the 
word)  in  its  statement  of  results." 

— Prof.  Henry  P.  Smith,  in  the  Magazine  of  Christian  Literature. 

* '  In  workmg  out  his  method  our  author  takes  up  each  book  in 
order  and  goes  through  it  with  marvelous  and  microscopic  care. 
Every  verse,  every  clause,  word  by  word,  is  sifted  and  weighed,  and 
its  place  in  the  literary  organism  decided  upon." 

—  The  Presbyterian  Quarterly. 

"  It  contains  just  that  presentation  of  the  results  of  Old  Testa- 
ment criticism  for  which  English  readers  in  this  department  have 
been  waiting.  .  .  .  The  whole  book  is  excellent;  it  will  be  found 
helpful,  characterized  as  it  is  all  through  by  that  scholarly  poise  of 
mind,  which,  when  it  does  not  know,  is  not  ashamed  to  present  de- 
grees of  probability." — New   World. 

"...  Canon  Driver's  book  is  characterized  throughout  by 
thorough  Christian  scholarship,  faithful  research,  caution  in  the 
expression  of  mere  opinions,  candor  in  the  statement  of  facts  and  of 
the  necessary  inferences  from  them,  and  the  devout  recognition  of 
the  divine  inworking  in  the  religious  life  of  the  Hebrews,  and  of  the 
tokens  of  divine  inspiration  in  the  literature  which  records  and  em- 
bodies it." — Dr.  A.  P.  Peabouv,  ///  the  Cambridge'  Tribune, 


OLD  TESTAMENT  HISTORY 

By  HENRY  PRESERVED  SMITH,  D.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  BIBLICAL  HISTORY  AND  INTERPRETATION,  AMHERST  COLLEGE 


Crown  8vo,  538  pages,  $2.50  net  (postage,  18  cts.) 


This  book  gives  a  history  of  Old  Testament  times. 
This  it  does  by  a  narrative  based  upon  those  Bibli- 
cal books  which  are  historical  in  form.  The  nature 
of  these  books  is  carefully  considered,  their  data  are 
used  according  to  historical  methods,  and  the  con- 
clusions of  recent  criticism  are  set  forth.  The  other 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  with  the  more  impor- 
tant of  the  Apocrypha  are  given  their  proper  place 
so  far  as  they  throw  light  on  the  development  of 
the  Old  Testament  people. 

"  Professor  Smith  has,  by  his  comprehensive  and  vitalized  history, 
laid  all  who  care  for  the  Old  Testament  under  great  obligations." 

—  TAe  Independent. 

"  The  volume  is  characterized  by  extraordinary  clearness  of  con- 
ception and  representation,  thorough  scholarly  ability,  and  charm 
of  style." — The  Interior. 

"  Dr.  Smith's  volume  is  critical  without  being  polemical,  inter- 
esting though  not  imaginative,  scholarly  without  pedantry,  and  radi- 
cal but  not  destructive.  The  author  is  himself  an  authority,  and  his 
volume  is  the  best  single  presentation  with  which  we  are  familiar  of 
the  modern  view  of  Old  Testament  history." — The  Ontlook. 

"This  volume  is  the  result  of  thorough  study,  is  free  from  the 
controversial  spirit  and  from  any  evidence  of  desire  to  challenge  older 
theories  of  the  Bible,  is  written  in  straightforward,  clear  style,  does 
not  linger  unduly  in  discussion  of  doubtful  matters,  is  reverent  and  at 
the  same  time  fearless.  If  one  has  accepted  the  main  positions  of  the 
Higher  Criticism,  while  he  may  still  differ  with  Professor  Smith's 
conclusions  here  and  there,  he  will  find  himself  in  accord  with  the 
spirit  of  the  author,  whose  scholarship  and  achievement  he  will 
gladly  honor." — The  Congregationalist . 

"We  have  a  clear,  interesting,  instructive  account  of  the  growth 
of  Israel,  embodying  a  series  of  careful  judgments  on  the  countless 
problems  that  face  the  man  who  tries  to  understand  the  life  of  that 
remarkable  people.  The  '  History'  takes  its  place  worthily  by  the  side 
of  Driver's  Introduction.  The  student  of  to-day  is  to  be  congratulated 
on  having  so  valuable  an  addition  made  to  his  stock  of  tools." 

—  The  Expository  Times. 


tk  3nfernationaf  C^ofogtcaf  £i6rdrg. 

A    HISTORY   OF 

CHRISTIANITY  IN  THE  APOSTOLIC  AGE 

BY 

ARTHUR  CUSHMAN    McGIFFERT,  Ph.D.,  D.D. 

Washburn  Professor  of  Church  History  in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  V^oH 


Crown  8vo,  681  Pages,  $2.50  Net. 


**  The  author's  work  is  ably  done.  .  .  .  This  volume  is  worthy  of 
its  place  in  the  series." — The  Congregationalist. 

"  Invaluable  as  a  resume  of  the  latest  critical  work  upon  the  great  forma- 
tive period  of  the  Christian  Church." — T/ie  Christian  World  (London). 

"There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  is  a  remarkable  work,  both  on  account 
of  the  thoroughness  of  its  c/i'^cism  and  the  boldness  of  its  views." 

—  The  Scotsman. 

"  The  ability  and  learning  of  Pro/sssor  McGiffert's  work  on  the  Apos- 
tolic Age,  and,  whatever  dissent  there  may  be  from  its  critical  opinion,  its 
manifest  sincerity,  candid  scholars  will  not  fail  to  appreciate." 

— Dr.  George  P.  Fisher,  of  Yale  University. 

"  Pre-eminently  a  clergyman's  book ;  but  there  are  many  reasons  why  it 
should  be  in  the  library  of  every  thoughtful  Christian  person.  The  style 
is  vivid  and  at  times  picturesque.  The  results  rather  than  the  processes  of 
learning  are  exhibited.  It  is  full  of  local  color,  of  striking  narrative,  and  of 
keen,  often  brilliant,  character  analysis.  It  is  an  admirable  book  for  the 
Sunday-school  teacher." — Boston  Advertiser. 

"  For  a  work  of  such  wide  learning  and  critical  accuracy,  and  which  deals 
with  so  many  difficult  and  abstruse  problems  of  Christian  history,  this  is  re- 
markably readable." — The  Independent. 

"It  is  certain  that  Professor  McGiffert's  work  has  set  the  mark  for 
future  effort  in  the  obscure  fields  of  research  into  Christian  origin." 

— A^ew  York  Tribune. 

"  Dr.  McGiffert  has  produced  an  able,  scholarly,  suggestive,  and  con- 
structive work.  He  is  in  thorough  and  easy  possession  of  his  sources  and 
materials,  so  that  his  positive  construction  is  seldom  interrupted  by  citations, 
the  demolition  of  opposing  views,  or  the  irrelevant  discussion  of  subordinate 
questions." — The  Methodist  Kevieiu. 

"The  clearness,  self-consistency,  and  force  of  the  whole  impressio.i  of 
Apostolic  Christianity  with  which  we  leave  this  book,  goes  far  to  guarantee 
its  permanent  value  and  success."  —  The  Expositor. 


THEOLOGY  OF  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT, 

By  GEORGC  B.  STEVENS,  D.D. 

Frofessor  of  Systematic  Theology,  Yale  University, 


Crown  8vo,  480  pages,  $2.50  net 


•'In  style  it  is  rarely  clear,  simple,  and  strong,  adapted  alike  to  the  gen. 
era!  reader  and  the  theological  student.  The  former  class  will  find  it  read- 
able  and  interesting  to  an  unusual  degree,  while  the  student  will  value  its 
thorough  scholarship  and  completeness  of  treatment.  His  work  has  a  sim- 
plicity, beauty,  and  freshness  that  add  greatly  to  its  scholarly  excellence  and 
worth. " — Christian  Advocate. 

"  Professor  Stevens  is  a  profound  student  and  interpreter  of  the  Bible,  as 
far  as  possible  divested  of  any  prepossessions  concerning  its  message.  In 
his  study  of  it  his  object  has  been  not  to  find  texts  that  might  seem  to  bol- 
ster up  some  system  of  theological  speculation,  but  to  find  out  what  the 
writers  of  the  various  books  meant  to  say  and  teach." — JV.   Y.  Tribune. 

"It  is  a  fine  example  of  painstaking,  discriminating,  impartial  research 
and  statement." — The  Congregationalist. 

•*  Professor  Stevens  has  given  us  a  very  good  book.  A  liberal  conser- 
vative, he  takes  cautious  and  moderate  positions  in  the  field  of  New  Testa- 
ment criticism,  yet  is  admirably  fair-minded.  His  method  is  patient  and 
thorough.  He  states  the  opinions  of  those  who  differ  from  him  with  care 
and  clearness.  The  proportion  of  quotation  and  reference  is  well  adjusted 
and  the  reader  is  kept  well  informed  concerning  the  course  of  opinion  with- 
out being  drawn  away  from  the  text  of  the  author's  own  thought.  His 
judgments  on  difficult  questions  are  always  put  with  self-restraint  and 
sobriety." — The  Churchman. 

"  It  will  certainly  take  its  place,  after  careful  reading,  as  a  valuable 
synopsis,  neither  bare  nor  over-elaborate,  to  which  recourse  will  be  had  by 
the  student  or  teacher  who  requires  within  moderate  compass  the  gist  oi 
modern  research." — The  Literary  Worid. 


3nfcrn<lfton<if  C6eofogtcdf  fetBrrttj. 

THE  ANCIENT  CATHOLIC  CHURCH 

From  the  Accession  of  Trajan  to  the  Fourth 
General  Council  (A.D.  98=451) 

By  ROBERT   RAINY,  D.D. 

Principal  of  the  New  College,  Edinburgh. 


Crown  8vo.    554  Pages.    Net,  $2.50. 


"This  is  verily  and  indeed  a  book  to  thank  God  for;  and  if  anybody  has 
been  despairing;  of  a  restoration  of  true  catholic  unity  in  God's  good  time,  it 
is  a  book  to  fill  him  with  hope  and  confidence." — The  Church  Standard. 

*  Principal  Rainy  has  written  a  fascinating  book.  He  has  the  gifts  of  an 
historian  and  an  expositor.  His  fresh  presentation  of  so  intricate  and  time- 
worn  a  subject  as  Gnosticism  grips  and  holds  the  attention  from  first  to  last. 
Familiarity  with  most  of  the  subjects  which  fall  to  be  treated  within  these 
limits  of  Christian  history  had  bred  a  fancy  that  v/e  might  safely  and  profit, 
ably  skip  some  of  the  chapters,  but  we  found  ourselves  returning  to  close  up 
the  gaps ;  we  should  advise  those  who  are  led  to  read  the  book  through  this 
notice  not  to  repeat  our  experiment.  It  is  a  dish  of  well-cooked  and  well- 
seasoned  meat,  savory  and  rich,  with  abundance  of  gravy ;  and,  while  no 
one  wishes  to  be  a  glutton,  he  will  miss  something  nutritious  if  he  does  not 
take  time  to  consume  it  all." — Alethodist  Review. 

**It  covers  the  period  from  98-451  A.D.,  with  a  well-marked  order,  and 
is  written  in  a  downright  style,  simple  and  unpretentious.  Simplicity,  in- 
deed, and  perspicuity  are  the  keynotes,  and  too  great  burden  of  detail  is 
avoided,     A  very  fresh  and  able  book." — The  Nation. 

"  The  International  Theological  Library  is  certainly  a  very  valuable  collec- 
tion of  books  on  the  science  of  Theology.  And  among  the  set  '"  good  books, 
Dr.  Rainy 's  volume  on  The  Ancient  Catholic  Church  s  entitled  to  a  high 
place.  We  know  of  no  one  volume  which  contains  .^o  much  matter  which 
is  necessary  to  a  student  of  theology." — The  Livitig  Church. 

••  Of  course,  a  history  so  condensed  is  not  to  be  read  satisfactorily  in  a  day 
or  even  a  week.  The  reader  often  will  find  ample  food  for  thought  for  a 
day  or  more  in  what  he  may  have  read  in  two  hours.  I>ut  the  man  who 
will  master  the  whole  book  will  be  amply  rewarded,  and  will  be  convinced 
that  he  has  been  conso'ting  with  a  company  of  the  world's  greatest  men, 
and  has  attained  an  accurate  knowledge  of  one  of  the  world's  greatest  and 
.most  important  periods." — Christian  InteUigcnccr. 

"As  a  compend  of  church  history  for  the  first  five  centuries,  this  volume 
will  be  found  most  useful,  for  ready  reference,  both  to  those  who  possess 
the  more  elaborate  church  histories,  and  for  the  general  information  desired 
by  a  wider  reading  public;  while  the  temperate  presentations  of  the  author's 
own  theories  upon  disputed  points  are  in  themselves  of  great  value." — 
Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

*'  Principal  Rainy  of  the  New  College,  Edinburgh,  is  oue  of  the  foremost 
scholars  of  Great  Pritain,  and  in  Scotland,  his  home,  he  is  regarded  by  his 
countrymen  as  the  chief  figure  in  their  ecclesiastical  life,  I  here  can  be 
little  doubt  that  this  recent  volume  will  enhance  his  reputation  and  serve  to 
introduce  him  to  a  wider  circle  of  friends  ^''  —Coni^re,^atumalist,  Boston^ 


Z^c  Jnfermftonaf  C^eofogtcoif  fetBrarw 

History  of  Christian  Doctrine. 

BY 

GEORGE  P.  FISHER,  D.D..  LL.D.. 

Titus  Street  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  Yale  Universitj^* 
Crown  8vo,  583  pages,  $2.50  net« 


'*  He  gives  ample  proof  of  rare  scholarship.  Many  of  the  old  doc- 
trines are  restated  with  a  freshness,  lucidity  and  elegance  of  style 
which  make  it  a  very  readable  book." — TAe  New  York  Observer. 

*' Intrinsically  this  volume  is  worthy  of  a  foremost  place  m  our 
modern  literature  .  .  .  We  have  no  work  on  the  subject  in  English 
eoual  to  it,  for  variety  and  range,  clearness  of  statement,  judicious 
guidance,  and  catholicity  of  tone." — London  Nonconfontiist  and  Inde- 
pendente 

"  It  is  only  just  to  say  that  Dr.  Fisher  has  produced  the  best  His- 
tor}  of  Doctrine  that  we  have  in  English." — The  New  Yotk  Evangelist, 

"It  is  to  me  quite  a  marvel  how  a  book  of  this  kind  (Fisher's 
•History  of  Christian  Doctrine')  can  be  written  so  accurately  to 
scale.  It  could  only  be  done  by  one  who  had  a  very  complete  com- 
mand of  all  the  periods." — Prof.  William  Sanday,  Oxford. 

'•It  presents  so  many  new  and  fresh  points  and  is  so  thoroughly 
treated,  and  brings  into  view  contemporaneous  thought,  especially 
the  American,  that  it  is  a  pleasure  to  read  it,  and  will  be  an  equal 
pleasure  to  go  back  to  it  again  and  again." — Bishop  John  F.  Hurst. 

"  Throughout  there  is  manifest  wide  reading,  careful  prepara- 
tion, spirit  and  good  judgment," — Philadelphia  Presbyterian. 

•'  The  language  and  style  are  alike  delightfully  fresh  and  easy 
.  .  .  A  book  which  will  be  found  both  stimulating  and  instructive 
to  the  student  of  theology." — The  Churchman. 

' '  Professor  Fisher  has  trained  the  public  to  expect  the  excellen 
cies  of  scholarship,  candor,  judicial  equipoise  and  admirable  lucidity 
and  elegance  of  style  in  whatever  comes  from  his  pen.     But  in  the 
present  work  he  has  surpassed  himself." — Prof.  J.  H.  Thayer,  o/ 
Harvard  Divinity  School. 

"  It  meets  the  severest  standard;  there  is  fullness  of  knowledge, 
thorough  research,  keenly  analytic  thought,  and  rarest  enrichment 
for  a  positive,  profound  and  learned  critic.  There  is  interpretative 
and  revealing  sympathy.  It  is  of  the  class  of  works  that  mark  epochs 
in  their  several  departments." — The  Outlook. 

•*  As  a  first  study  of  the  History  of  Doctrine,  Professor  Fisher's 
volume  has  the  merit  of  being  full,  accurate  and  interesting." 

— Prof.  Marcus  Dods 

** .  .  .  He  gathers  up,  reorganizes  and  presents  the  results  of 
tovestigation  in  a  style  rarely  full  of  literary  charm," 

—  The  Inferior.. 


CHRISTIAN   INSTITUTIONS 


By  ALEXANDER  V.  G.  ALLEN.  D.D. 

Professor  of  Eccle  ;iastical  History  in  the  Episcopal  Theological  School 
in  Cambridge. 


Crown  8vo,  577  pages,  $2.50  net. 


•*  Professor  Allen's  Christian  Institutions  may  be  regarded  as  tht  most 
important  permanent  contribution  which  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Ch'irch 
of  the  United  States  has  yet  made  to  general  theological  thought.  In  a  few 
particulars  it  will  not  command  the  universal,  or  even  the  genera!  assent  of 
discriminating  readers  ;  but  it  will  receive,  as  it  deserves,  the  respect  and 
appreciation  of  those  who  rightly  estimate  the  varied,  learned,  and  independ- 
ent spirit  of  the  author." — T/ie  American  Journal  of  Theology. 

"  As  to  his  method  there  can  be  no  two  opinions,  nor  as  to  the  broad, 
critical,  and  appreciative  character  of  his  study.  It  is  an  immensely  sug- 
gestive, stimulating,  and  encouraging  piece  of  work.  It  shows  that  modern 
scholarship  is  not  all  at  sea  as  to  results,  and  it  presents  a  worthy  view  of  a 
great  and  noble  subject,  the  greatest  and  noblest  of  all  subjects." — The  In- 
dependent. 

"This  will  at  once  take  its  place  among  the  most  valuable  volumes  in  tVif» 
*  International   Theological  Library,'  constituting  in  itself  a  very  complete 
epitome   both   of  general   church   history  and  of  the  history  of  doctrines 
A  single  quotation  well   illustrates   the  brilliant  style  and  the  pro- 
found thought  of  the  book." — The  Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

**  The  wealth  of  learning,  the  historical  spirit,  the  philosophic  grasp,  the 
loyalty  to  the  continuity  of  life,  which  everywhere  characterize  this  thorough 
study  of  the  organization,  creeds,  and  cultus  constituting  Christian  Institu- 
tion. .  .  .  However  the  reader  may  differ  with  the  conclusions  of  the 
author,  few  will  question  his  painstaking  scholarship,  judicial  temperament, 
and  catholicity  of  Christian  spirit." — The  Advance. 

"It  is  an  honor  to  American  scholarship,  and  will  be  read  by  all  who 
wish  to  be  abreast  of  the  age." — The  Lutherati  Chtiirh  /Review. 

"  With  all  its  defects  and  limitations,  this  is  a  most  illuminating  and  sug 
gestive  book  on  a  subject  of  abiding  interest." — The  Christian  Intelli- 
gencer.''^ 

"  It  is  a  treasury  of  expert  knowledge,  arranged  in  an  orderly  and  lucid 
manner,  and  more  than  ordinarily  readable.  .  .  .  It  is  controlled  by  the 
candid  and  critical  spirit  of  the  careful  historian  who,  of  c(jurse,  has  his 
convictions  and  preferences,  but  who  makes  no  claims  in  their  behalf  which 
the  facts  do  not  seem  to  warrant." — The  Congregationalist. 

"  He  writes  in  a  charming  style,  and  has  collected  a  vast  amount  of  im- 
portant  material  pertaining  to  his  sul)ject  which  can  be  found  in  ;io  other 
work  in  so  compact  a  f<.jrni." — 2'Ht;  Acio    York  Obneri'cr 


€^c  3nfernationaf  C^eofogicaf  S^iBrarg. 

Apologetics ; 

Or,  Christianity  Defensively  Stated. 

By  the  late  ALEXANDER  BALMAIN  BRUCE,  D.D  . 

Professor  of  Apologetics  and  New  Testament  Exegesis,  Free  Church  College, 
Qlasgow  ;  Author  of  "  The  Training  of  the  Twelve,"  "The  Humilia- 
tion of  Christ,"  "  The  Kingdom  of  God,"  etc. 


Crown  8vo,  528  pages,  $2.50  net 


Professor  Brace's  work  is  not  an  abstract  treatise  on  apologetics, 
but  an  apologetic  presentation  of  the  Christian  faith,  with  reference 
to  whatever  in  our  intellectual  environment  makes  faith  difficult  at 
the  present  time. 

It  addresses  itself  to  men  whose  sympathies  are  with  Christianity, 
and  discusses  the  topics  of  pressing  concern — the  burning  questions 
of  the  hour.  It  is  offered  as  an  aid  to  faith  rather  than  a  buttress  of 
received  belief  and  an  armory  of  weapons  for  the  orthodox  believer. 

• '  The  book  throughout  exhibits  the  methods  and  the  results  of 
conscientious,  independent,  expert  and  devout  Biblical  scholarship, 
and  it  is  of  permanent  value." — T/u  Congregationalist. 

"The  practical  value  of  this  book  entitles  it  to  a  place  in  the 
first  rank." — The  Independent. 

'*  A  patient  and  scholarly  presentation  of  Christianity  under 
aspects  best  fitted  to  commend  it  to  '  ingenuous  and  truth-loving 
minds.'  " — The  Nation. 

' '  The  book  is  well-nigh  indispensable  to  those  who  propose  to 
keep  abreast  of  the  times." — Western  Christia7i  Advocate. 

"Professor  Bruce  does  not  consciously  evade  any  difficulty, 
and  he  constantly  aims  to  be  completely  fair-minded.  For  this 
reason  he  wins  from  the  start  the  strong  confidence  of  the  reader." — 
A  dvance. 

♦•  Its  admirable  spirit,  no  less  than  the  strength  of  its  arguments, 
will  go  far  to  remove  many  of  the  prejudices  or  doubts  of  those  who 
are  outside  of  Christianity,  but  who  are,  nevertheless,  not  infidels." — 
Netv  York  Tribune. 

"  In  a  word,  he  tells  precisely  what  all  intelligent  persons  wish  to 
know,  and  tells  it  in  a  clear,  fresh  and  convincing  manner.  Scarcely 
anyone  has  so  successfully  rendered  the  service  of  showing  what 
the  result  of  the  higher  criticism  is  for  the  proper  understanding  of 
the  history  and  religion  of  Israel." — Andover  Review. 

•'  We  have  not  for  a  long  time  taken  a  book  in  hand  that  is  more 
stimulating  to  faith.  .  .  .  Without  commenting  further,  we  repeat 
that  this  volume  is  the  ablest,  most  scholarly,  most  advanced,  and 
sharpest  defence  of  Christianity  that  has  ever  l:)een  written.  Nc 
theological  library  should  bo  without  it." — ^iofis  Herald. 


Cljc  |nt?rnaftona[   Cnfital   (Lommnitat| 

on  tl]e  f)o[ij  Scriptures  of  tl)c  (5)ib  anb 
Nem  (Je0tament0. 


EDITORS     PREFACE. 


There  are  now  before  the  public  many  Commentaries, 
written  by  British  and  American  divines,  of  a  popular  or 
homiletical  character.  The  Cambfidge  Bible  for  Schools^ 
the  Handbooks  for  Bible  Classes  and  Private  Students,  The 
Speaker's  Commentary^  The  Popular  Commentary  (Schaff), 
The  Expositor  s  Bible^  and  other  similar  series,  have  their 
special  place  and  importance.  But  they  do  not  enter  into 
the  field  of  Critical  Biblical  scholarship  occupied  by  such 
series  of  Commentaries  as  the  Kurzgefasstes  exegetisches 
Handbuch  zum  A.  T;  De  Wette's  Kurzgefasstes  exegetisches 
Handbuch  zum  N.  T;  Meyer's  Kritisch-exegetischer  Kom- 
mentar;  Keil  and  Delitzsch's  Biblischer  Commentar  iiher  das 
A.  T.;  Lange's  Theologisch-homiletisches  Bibelwerk ;  Nowack's 
Ha)idkommentar  zum  A.  T. ;  Holtzmann's  Ha?ulkommentar 
zum  N.  T.  Several  of  these  have  been  translated,  edited, 
and  in  some  cases  enlarged  and  adapted,  for  the  English- 
speaking  public  ;  others  are  in  process  of  translation.  But 
no  corresponding  series  by  British  or  American  divines 
has  hitherto  been  produced.  The  way  has  been  prepared 
by  special  Commentaries  by  Cheyne,  Ellicott,  Kalisch, 
Lightfoot,  Perowne,  Westcott,  and  others  ;  and  the  time  has 
come,  in  the  judgment  of  the  projectors  of  this  enterprise, 
when  it  is  practicable  to  combine  British  and  American 
scholars    in    the    production   of   a    critical,    comprehensive 


editors'  preface 

Commentary  that  will  be  abreast  of  modern  biblical  scholar- 
ship, and  in  a  measure  lead  its  van. 

Messrs.  Charles  Scribner's  Sons  of  New  York,  and  Messrs. 
T.  &  T.  Clark  of  Edinburgh,  propose  to  publish  such  a 
series  of  Commentaries  on  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
under  the  editorship  of  Prof.  C.  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  in  America, 
and  of  Prof.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  for  the  Old  Testament,  and 
the  Rev.  Alfred  Plummer,  D.D.,  for  the  New  Testament, 
in  Great  Britain. 

The  Commentaries  will  be  international  and  inter-con- 
fessional, and  will  be  free  from  polemical  and  ecclesiastical 
bias.  They  will  be  based  upon  a  thorough  critical  study  of 
the  original  texts  of  the  Bible,  and  upon  critical  methods  of 
interpretation.  They  are  designed  chiefly  for  students  and 
clergymen,  and  will  be  written  in  a  compact  style.  Each 
book  will  be  preceded  by  an  Introduction,  stating  the  results 
of  criticism  upon  it,  and  discussing  impartially  the  questions 
still  remaining  open.  The  details  of  criticism  will  appear 
in  their  proper  place  in  the  body  of  the  Commentary.  Each 
section  of  the  Text  will  be  introduced  with  a  paraphrase, 
or  summary  of  contents.  Technical  details  of  textual  and 
philological  criticism  will,  as  a  rule,  be  kept  distinct  from 
matter  of  a  more  general  character ;  and  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment the  exegetical  notes  will  be  arranged,  as  far  as 
possible,  so  as  to  be  serviceable  to  students  not  acquainted 
with  Hebrew.  The  History  of  Interpretation  of  the  Books 
will  be  dealt  with,  when  necessary,  in  the  Introductions, 
with  critical  notices  of  the  most  important  literature  of 
the  subject.  Historical  and  Archaeological  questions,  as 
well  as  questions  of  Biblical  Theology,  are  included  in  the 
plan  of  the  Commentaries,  but  not  Practical  or  Homiletical 
Exegesis.     The  Volumes  will  constitute  a  uniform  series. 


ZU  3nternaftonaf  ^^eofogtcaf  fetBrarg. 

Christian  Ethics, 

By  NEWMAN  SMYTH,  D.D.,  New  Haven. 


Crown  8vo,  508  pages,  $2.50  net. 


"As  this  book  is  the  latest,  so  it  is  the  fullest  and  most  attractive 
treatment  of  the  subject  that  we  are  familiar  with.  Patient  and  ex- 
haustive in  its  method  of  inc^uiry,  and  stimulating  and  suggestive  in 
the  topic  it  handles,  we  are  confident  that  it  will  be  a  help  to  the 
task  of  the  moral  understanding  and  interpretation  of  human  life." 

—  TAe  Livhig  Church. 

"  This  book  of  Dr.  Newman  Smyth  is  of  extraordinary  interest  and 
value.  It  is  an  honor  to  American  scholarship  and  American  Chris- 
tian thinking.  It  is  a  work  which  has  been  wrought  out  with  re- 
markable grasp  of  conception,  and  power  of  just  analysis,  fullness  of 
information,  richness  of  thought,  and  affluence  of  apt  and  luminous 
illustration.  Its  style  is  singularly  clear,  simple,  facile,  and  strong. 
Too  much  gratification  can  hardly  be  expressed  at  the  way  the  author 
lifts  the  whole  subject  of  ethics  up  out  of  the  slough  of  mere  natural- 
ism into  its  own  place,  where  it  is  seen  to  be  illumined  by  the  Chris- 
tian revelation  and  vision." — The  Advance. 

"  The  subjects  treated  cover  the  whole  field  of  moral  and  spiritual  re- 
lations, theoretical  and  practical,  natural  and  revealed,  individual  and  social, 
civil  and  ecclesiastical.  To  enthrone  the  personal  Christ  as  the  true  content 
of  the  ethical  ideal,  to  show  how  this  ideal  is  realized  in  Christian  conscious- 
ness and  how  applied  in  the  varied  departments  of  practical  life — these  are 
the  main  objects  of  the  book  and  no  objects  could  be  loftier." 

—  The  Congregationalist. 

*'  The  author  has  written  with  competent  knowledge,  with  great  spiritual 
insight,  and  in  a  tone  of  devoutness  and  reverence  worthy  of  his  theme." 

—  The  London  Independent. 

"It  is  methodical,  comprehensive,  and  readable ;  few  subdivisions, 
direct  or  indi»-ect,  are  omitted  in  the  treatment  of  the  broad  theme,  and 
though  it  aims  to  be  an  exhaustive  treatise,  and  not  a  popular  handbook,  it 
may  be  perused  at  random  with  a  good  deal  of  suggestiveness  and  profit," 

—  The  Sunday  School  Times. 

"  It  reflects  great  credit  on  the  author,  presenting  an  exempU.ry  temper 
and  manner  throughout,  being  a  model  of  clearness  in  thought  and  term, 
and  containing  passages  of  exquisite  finish." — Hartford  Seminary  Recor(^, 

"  We  commend  this  book  to  all  reading,  intelligent  men,  an*'  especi  U* 
to  ministers,  who  will  find  in  it  many  fresh  suggestions." 

— PROIESSUR   A.    E      BRUO 


t^t  Sntcvndftonaf  C^cofogicftf  EtBrarg. 


THE  CHRISTIAN  PASTOR  AND  THE 
WORKING  CHURCH 

by  WASHINGTON  GLADDEN,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Author  of  "Applied  Christianity,"  "Who  Wrote  the  Bible?"  "Ruling 
Ideas  of  the  Preseht  Age,"  etc. 


Crown  8vo,  485  pages,  $2.5o  net. 


**  Dr.  Gladden  may  be  regarded  as  an  expert  and  an  authority  on  practi- 
cal theology.  .  .  .  Upon  the  whole  we  judge  that  it  will  be  of  great 
service  to  the  ministry  of  all  the  Protestant  churches." — T/ie  Interior. 

"  Packed  with  wisdom  and  instruction  and  a  profound  piety.  .  .  . 
It  is  pithy,  pertinent,  and  judicious  from  cover  to  cover.  .  .  .  An  ex- 
ceedingly comprehensive,  sagacious,  and  suggestive  study  and  application 
of  its  theme." — T/it^  Congregationalist. 

"  We  have  here,  for  the  pastor,  the  most  modern  practical  treatise  yet 
•published — sagacious,  balanced,  devout,  inspiring." — The  Dial. 

'*  His  long  experience,  his  eminent  success,  his  rare  literary  ability,  and 
his  diligence  as  a  student  combine  to  make  of  this  a  model  book  for  its  pur- 
pose. .  .  .  We  know  not  where  the  subjects  are  more  wisely  discussed 
than  here." — The  Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

"This  book  should  be  the  vade  mecum  of  every  working  pastor.  It 
abounds  in  wise  counsels  and  suggestions,  the  result  of  large  experience 
and  observation.  No  sphere  of  church  life  or  church  work  is  left  untreated." 
—  The  (Canadian)  Methodist  Magazine  and  Review. 

"  A  happier  combination  of  author  and  subject,  it  will  be  acknowledged, 
can  hardly  be  found.  ...  It  is  comprehensive,  practical,  deeply 
spiritual,  and  fertile  in  wise  and  suggestive  thought  upon  ways  and  means 
of  bringing  the  Gospel  to  bear  on  the  lives  of  men." — The  Christian  Ad- 
vocate. 

"  Dr.  Gladden  writes  with  pith  and  point,  but  with  wise  moderation,  a 
genial  tone  and  great  good  sense.     .  .     The  book  is  written  in  an  excel- 

lent, business-like  and  vital  English  style,  which  carries   the  author's  point 
and  purpose  and  has  an  attractive  vitality  of  its  own." — The  Independent. 

"  A  comprehensive,  inspiring,  and  helpful  guide  to  a  busy  pastor.  On? 
?.nds  in  it  a  multitude  of  practical  suggestions  for  the  development  of  tho 
spiritual  and  working  life  of  the  Church,  and  the  answer  to  many  problems' 
that  are  a  constant  perplexity  to  the  faithful  minister." 

The  Christian  Intetlis^encer 


^Ixjc  ^utcxnxati0nal  ©viticaX  ©jommcntavg. 


"A  decided  advance  on  all  other  commentaries^  —  The  Outlcx)k, 


DEUTERONOMY. 

By  the  Rev.  S.   R.   DRIVER,  D.D..  D.Litt., 

Regius  i'rulcssur  of  Hebrew,  and  Canon  o£  Cliribl  Church,  Oxford 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00. 


"No  one  could  be  better  qualified  than  Professor  Driver  to  write  a  critical 
and  exegetical  commentary  on  Deuteronomy.  His  previous  works  are  author- 
ities in  all  the  departments  involved;  the  grammar  and  lexicon  of  the  Hebrew 
language,  the  lower  and  higher  criticism,  as  well  as  exegesis  and  Biblical  the- 
ology; .  .  .  the  interpretation  in  this  commentary  is  careful  and  sober  in  the 
main.  A  wealth  of  historical,  geographical,  and  philological  information  illus- 
trates and  elucidates  both  the  narrative  and  the  discourses.  Valuable,  though 
concise,  excursuses  are  often  given."  —  The  Congregation  a  list. 

"  It  is  a  pleasure  to  see  at  last  a  really  critical  Old  Testament  commentary 
in  English  upon  a  portion  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  especially  one  of  such  merit. 
This  I  find  superior  to  any  other  Commentary  in  any  language  upon  Deuter- 
onomy." —  Professor  E.  L.  Curtis,  of  Yale  University. 

"  This  volume  of  Professor  Driver's  is  marked  by  his  well-known  care  and 
accuracy,  and  it  will  be  a  great  boon  to  every  one  who  wishes  to  acquire  a 
thorough  knowledge,  either  of  the  Hebrew  language,  or  of  the  contents  of  the 
Book  of  Deuteronomy,  and  their  significance  for  the  development  of  Old  Tes- 
tament thought.  The  author  finds  scope  for  displaying  his  well-known  wide 
and  accurate  knowledge,  and  delicate  appreciation  of  the  genius  of  the 
Hebrew  language,  and  his  readers  are  supplied  with  many  carefully  con- 
structed lists  of  words  and  expressions.  He  is  at  his  best  in  the  detailed 
examination  of  the  text."  —  London  Athencciwi. 

"  It  must  be  said  that  this  work  is  bound  to  take  rank  among  the  best  com- 
mentaries in  any  language  on  the  important  book  with  which  it  deals.  On 
every  page  there  is  abundant  evidence  of  a  scholarly  knowledge  of  the  litera- 
ture, and  of  the  most  painstaking  care  to  make  the  book  useful  to  thorough 
students."  —  The  Lutheran  Churchmaji. 

*'  The  deep  and  difficult  questions  raised  by  Deuteronomy  are,  in  every  in- 
stance, considered  with  care,  insight,  and  critical  acumen.  The  student  who 
•wishes  for  solid  information,  or  a  knowledge  of  method  and  temper  of  the 
new  criticism,  will  find  advantage  in  consulting  the  pages  ot  Dr.  Driver."  ■-— 
Zitn's  Herald. 


^}xt  lutevnattoual  ©rtttcaX  Contmcntavtj. 

'^IV^  believe  this  series  to  be  of  epoch-maki7ig  importance ^ 

—  The  N.  Y.  Evangelist. 

JUDGES. 

By  Dr.  GEORGE   FOOT  MOORE,  D.D.. 

,    Professor  of  Theology,    Harvard  University. 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00. 


"The  typographical  execution  of  this  handsome  volume  is  worthy  of  the 
scholarly  character  of  the  contents,  and  higher  praise  could  not  be  given  it." 
—  Professor  C.  H.  Toy,  of  Harvard  University. 

*'  This  work  represents  the  latest  results  of  *  Scientific  Biblical  Scholarship,' 
and  as  such  has  the  greatest  value  for  the  purely  critical  student,  especially  on 
the  side  of  textual  and  literary  criticism."  —  The  Church  Standard. 

**  Professor  Moore  has  more  than  sustained  his  scholarly  reputation  in  this 
work,  which  gives  us  for  the  first  time  in  English  a  commentary  on  Judges  not 
excelled,  if  indeed  equalled,  in  any  language  of  the  world."  —  Professor 
L.  W.  Batten,  of  P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia. 

"  Although  a  critical  commentary,  this  work  has  icS  practical  uses,  and  by 
its  divisions,  headlines,  etc.,  it  is  admirably  adapted  to  the  wants  of  all 
thoughtful  students  of  the  Scriptures.  Indeed,  with  the  other  books  of  the 
series,  it  is  sure  to  find  its  way  into  the  hands  of  pastors  and  scholarly  lay- 
men."—  Portland  Zion's  Herald. 

*'  Like  its  predecessors,  this  volume  will  be  warmly  welcomed  —  whilst  to 
those  whose  means  of  securing  up-to-date  information  on  the  subject  of  which 
it  treats  are  limited,  it  is  simply  invaluable."  —  Edinburgh  Scotsman. 

"  The  work  is  done  in  an  atmosphere  of  scholarly  interest  and  indifference 
to  dogmatism  and  controversy,  which  is  at  least  refreshing.  ...  It  is  a  noble 
introduction  to  the  moral  forces,  ideas,  and  influences  that  controlled  the 
period  of  the  Judges,  and  a  model  of  what  a  historical  commentary,  with  a 
practical  end  in  view  should  be."  —  The  Independent. 

"  The  work  is  marked  by  a  clear  and  forcible  style,  by  scholarly  research,  by 
critical  acumen,  by  extensive  reading,  and  by  evident  familiarity  with  the 
Hebrew.  Many  of  the  comments  and  suggestions  are  valuable,  while  the 
index  at  the  close  is  serviceable  and  satisfactory."  —  Philadelphia  Presbyterian. 

"  This  volume  sustains  the  reputation  of  the  series  for  accurate  and  wide 
scholarship  given  in  clear  and  strong  English,  ...  the  scholarly  reader  will 
find  delight  in  the  perusal  of  this  n^.>.;v,V,1e  commentary."  —  Z/Vjw'j  Herald. 


THE  INTERNATIONAL  CRITICAL  COMMENTARY. 

Thk  following  eminent  Scholars  are  engaged  upon  the  Volumes 
named  below:  ^j^j^  q^d  TESTAMENT. 

Genesis  The  Rev.  John  Skinnf.u,  I)  D.,  Professor  of  Old  Tes- 

tament Language  and  Literature,  College  of  Pres- 
byterian Church  of  England,  Cambridge,  England. 

Exodus  The   Rev.    A.   R.    S.  Kennedy,  D.D.,    Professor   of 

Hebrew,  University  of  Edinburgh. 

Leviticus  J.  F.  Stenning,  M.A.,    Fellow  of  Wadham  College, 

Oxford. 

Numbers  G.    Buchanan  Gray,  D.D.,    Professor  of   Hebrew, 

Mansfield  College,  Oxford,  [/Voru  Ready, 

Deuteronomy  The  Rev.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Regius  Pro- 

fessor of  Hebrew,  Oxford.  \_Now  Ready. 

Joshua  The  Rev.  George  Adam  Smith,   D.D.,  LL.D.,  Pro- 

fessor of  Hebrew,  Free  Church  College,  Glasgow. 

Judges  The  Rev.  George  Moore,  D.  D.  ,  LL.  D. ,  Professor  of 

Theology,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

[A^^Tc  Ready. 

Samuel  The  Rev.  H.  P.  Smith,  D.D.,  Professor  of  Biblical 

History,  Amherst  College,  Mass.        S^Noio  Ready. 

Kings  The  Rev.   Francis  Brown,    D.D.,   D.Litt..  LL.D., 

Professor  of  Hebrew  and  Cognate  Languages, 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York  City. 

Chronicles  The  Rev.  Edward  L.  Curtis,   D  D.,    Professor  of 

Hebrew,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Ezra  and  The   Rev.    L.  W.  Batten,    Ph.D.,    D.D.,   Rector  of 

Nehemiah  St.    Marks    Church,    New   York   City,   sometime 

Professor  of  Hebrew,  P.  E.  Divinity  School, 
Philadelphia. 

Psalms  The  Rev.  Chas.   A.    Briggs,    D.D.,    D.Litt.,    Pro- 

fessor of  Biblical  Theology,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York. 

Proverbs  The  Rev.   C.   H.  Toy.   D.D.,   LL  D.,    Professor  of 

Hebrew,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

\^No-a  Ready. 

Job  The    Rev.    S.   R.    Driver,    D.D.,    D.Litt.,     Regius 

Professor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford. 

Isaiah  Chaps.  I-XXXIX.     The  Rev.  S.  R.  Driver,  D.D., 

D.Litt.,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew,  Oxford. 

Isaiah  Chaps.    XL-LXVL       The    late    Rev.    Prof.    A.    B. 

Davidson,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Jeremiah  The    Rev.    A.    F.    Kirkpatrick,    D.  D.,    Master  of 

Selwyn  College,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew, 
Cambridge,  England. 

Ezekiel  By  the    Rev.    G.  A.   Cooke,   M.A.,    Fellow    Mag- 

dalen College,  and  the  Rev.  Charles  F.  Burney, 
M.A.,  Fellow  and  Lecturer  in  Hebrew,  St.  Johns 
College,  Oxford. 

Daniel  The  Rev.  John  P.  Peters,  Ph.D.,  D.D.,  sometime 

Professor  of  Hebrew,  P.  E.  Divinity  School, 
Philadelphia,  now  Rector  of  St.  Michael's  Church, 
New  York  City. 

Amos  and  Rosea  W.  R.  Harper,  Ph.D.,  LL  D.,  President  of  the 
University  of  Chicago,  Illinois.  | /;/  Press. 

Micah  to  Malachi  W.  R.  Harper,  Ph.D.,  LL  D.,  President  of  the 
University  of  Chicago. 

Esther  The  Rev.  L.  B.  Paton,  Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Hebrew, 

Hartford  Theological  Seminary. 


Zf}C  3nfernattonaf  Criftcaf  Commenfarg, 

Ecclesiastes  Prof.    George    A.    Barton.    Ph.D.,    Professor    of 

Biblical  Literature,  Bryn  Mawr  College,  Pa. 

Ruth  Rev.  Charles  P.  Fagnani,  D.D.,  Associate  Profes- 

sor of  Hebrew,  Union  Theological  Seminary. 
New  York. 

Song  of  Songs         Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  D.Litt.,  Professor  of 

and  Lamentations  Biblical  Theology,  Union  Theological  Seminary, 
New  York. 

THE    NEW   TESTAMENT. 

St.  Matthew  The  Rev.  Willoughby  C.  Allen,  M.A.,  Fellow  of 

Exeter  College,  Oxford. 

St.  Mark  The    late    Rev.     E.     P.    Gould,    D.D.,    sometime 

Professor  of  New  Testament  Literature,  P.  E, 
Divinity  School,  Philadelphia.  [Now  Ready. 

St.  Luke  The  Rev.  Alfred  PlumiMer,  D.D.,  sometime  Master 

of  University  College,  Durham.  [Noiv  Ready. 

St.  John  The  Very  Rev.  John  Henry  Bernard,  D.D.,  Dean 

of  St.  Patrick's  and  Lecturer  in  Divinity, 
University  of  Dublin. 

Harmony  of  the  The  Rev.  William  Sanday,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Lady 
Gospels  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity,  Oxford,  and   the 

Rev.  Willoughby  C.  Allen,  M.A.,  Fellow  of 
Exeter  College,  Oxford. 

Acts  The   Rev.   Frederick  H.  Chase,  Norissonian  Pro- 

fessor of  Divinity,  President  of  Queens  College 
and  Vice-Chancellor,  Cambridge,  England. 

Romans  The    Rev.   William    Sanday.    D.D.,   LL.D.,    Lady 

Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity  and  Canon  of 
Christ  Church,  Oxford,  and  the  Rev.  A.  C 
Headlam,  M.  a.,  D.D.,  Principal  of  Kings  College, 
London.  [Now  Ready. 

Corinthians  The  Right  Rev.  Arch.   Robertson,  D.D.,   LL  D., 

Lord  Bishop  of  Exeter,  and  the  Rev.  Richard  J. 
Knowling,  D.D. ,  Professor  of  New  Testament 
Exegesis,  Kings  College,  London. 

Galatians  The   Rev.   Ernest  D.   Burton,   D.D.,  Professor  of 

NewTestament  Literature, University  of  Chicago. 

Ephesians  and         The  Rev.   T.   K.  Abbott,    B.D.,  D.Litt.,  sometime 

Colossians  Professor   of     Biblical    Greek,    Trinity    College, 

Dublin,  now  Librarian  of  the  same.   \No7v  Ready. 

Philippians  and       The  Rev.   Marvin  R.  Vincent,  D.D.,  Professor  of 

Philemon  Biblical  Literature,  Union  Theological  Seminary, 

New  York  City.  [No7u  Ready. 

Thessalonians  The  Rev.  James  E.  Frame,  M.A.,  Associate  Profes- 
sor in  the  New  Testament,  Union  Theological 
Seminary,  New  York. 

The  Pastoral  The  Rev.  Walter   Lock,   D.D.,  Warden  of  Keble 

Epistles  College  and  Professor  of  Exegesis,  Oxford. 

Hebrews  The  Rev.   A.   Nairne,  M.A,,  Professor  of  Hebrew 

in  Kings  College,  London. 

St.  James  The  Rev  James  H.  Ropes,  D.D.,  Bussey  Professor  of 

New  Testament  Criticism  in  Harvard  University. 

Peter  and  Jude  The  Rev.  Charles  Bigg,  D.D.,  Regius  Professor 
of  Ecclesiastical  History  and  Canon  of  Christ 
Church,  Oxford.  [Now  Ready. 

The  Epistles  of  The  Rev.  S.  D.  F.  Salmcknd,  D.D.,  Principal  of  the 
St.  John  United  Free  Church  College,  Aberdeen. 

Revelation  The  Rev.  Robert  H.  Charles,  M.A.,  D.D.,  Profes- 

sor of  Biblical  Greek  in  the  University  of  Dublin, 


^Itc  lutcvuatioual  OTvttical  (gommcntaviT. 

"  IVe  deem  it  as  needful  for  the  studious  pastor  to  possess  himselj 
of  these  volumes  as  to  obtain  the  best  dictionary  and  encyclopedia'' 

— The  Congregationalist. 


ST.  MARK. 


6y  the  Rev.   E.   P.  GOULD,  O.D.. 

LaU  professor  of  New  Tcsta>iient  Exegcsisy  P,  E.  Divinity  School,  PhiladelpJiia. 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $2.50. 


**  lu  point  of  scholarship,  of  accuracy,  of  originality,  this  last  addition  to  ti.v, 
series  is  worthy  of  its  predecessors,  while  for  terseness  and  keenness  of  exegesis, 
vve  should  put  it  first  of  them  all." —  The  Congregationalist. 

"The  whole  make-up  is  that  of  a  thoroughly  helpful,  instructive  critical 
atudy  of  the  Word,  surpassing  anything  of  the  kind  ever  attempted  in  the 
English  language,  and  to  students  and  clergymen  knowing  the  proper  use  of 
a  commentary  it  will  prove  an  invaluable  aid." —  The  Lutheran  Quarterly. 

"  Professor  Gould  has  done  his  work  well  and  thoroughly.  .  .  .  The  com- 
mentary is  an  admirable  example  of  the  critical  method  at  its  best.  .  .  .  The 
Word  study  .  .  .  shows  not  only  familiarity  with  all  the  literature  of  the  sub- 
ject, but  patient,  faithful,  and  independent  investigation.  ...  It  will  rank 
among  the  best,  as  it  is  the  latest  commentary  on  this  basal  Gospel."  —  The 
Christian  Intelligencer. 

"  It  will  give  the  student  the  vigorously  expressed  thought  of  a  very  thought- 
ful scholar."  —  The  Church  Standard. 

"  Dr.  Gould's  commentary  on  Mark  is  a  large  success,  .  .  .  and  a  credit  to 
American  scholarship,  .  .  .  He  has  undoubtedly  given  us  a  commentary  on 
Mark  which  surpasses  all  others,  a  thing  we  have  reason  to  expect  will  l)e  true 
in  the  case  of  every  volume  of  the  series  to  which  it  belongs."  —  l^ie  Biblical 
World. 

"The  volume  is  characterized  by  extensive  learning,  patient  attention  to 
details  and  a  fair  degree  of  caution."  —  Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

"The  exegetical  portion  of  the  book  is  simple  in  arrangement,  admirable 
in  form  and  condensed  in  statement.  .  .  .  Dr.  Gould  does  not  slavishly  follow 
any  authority,  but  expresses  his  own  opinions  in  language  both  concise  and 
clear." —  The  Chicago  Standard. 

"  In  clear,  forcible  and  elegant  language  the  author  furnishes  the  results  of 
the  best  investigations  on  the  second  Gospel,  both  early  and  late.  He  treats 
these  various  sui)jects  with  the  hand  of  a  master."  —  Boston  Zion''s  Herald. 

"The  author  gives  abundant  evidence  of  thorough  acquaintance  with  the 
facts  and  history  in  the  case.  ...  His  treatment  of  them  is  always  fresh  and 
scholarly,  and  oftentimes  helpful." —.2/4<r  AVit/  York  Observer. 


gfeje  Intevuationat  g^viticat  ^ommcutarB; 

"  //  is  hardly  necessary  to  say  that  this  series  will  stand  first 
among  all  English  serial  commentaries  on  the  Bible.'' 

—  The  Biblical  World. 


ST.  LUKE. 

By  the  Rev.  ALFRED  PLUfinER,  D.D., 

Master  of  University  College,  Durham.     Formerly  Fellow  and  Senior  Tutor  of 
Trinity  College,  Oxford. 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00. 


In  the  author's  Critical  Introduction  to  the  Commentary  is  contained  a  full 
'reaiment  of  a  large  number  of  important  topics  connected  with  the  study  of 
jhe  Gospel,  among  which  are  the  following :  The  Author  of  the  Book  —  The 
Sources  of  the  Gospel  —  Object  and  Plan  of  the  Gospel  —  Characteristics, 
Style  and  Language  —  The  Integrity  of  the  Gospel  —  The  Text  —  Literary 
History. 

FROM  THE  AUTHOR'S   PREFACE. 

If  this  Commentary  has  any  special  features,  they  will  perhaps  be  found  in 
ihe  illustrations  from  Jewish  writings,  in  the  abundance  of  references  to  the 
Septuagint,  and  to  the  Acts  and  other  books  of  the  New  Testament,  in  the 
frequent  quotations  of  renderings  in  the  Latin  versions,  and  in  the  attention 
which  has  been  paid,  both  in  the  Introduction  and  throughout  the  Notes,  to 
the  marks  of  St.  Luke's  style. 

"It  is  distinguished  throughout  by  learning,  sobriety  of  judgment,  and 
sound  exegesis.  It  is  a  weighty  contribution  to  the  interpretation  of  the 
Third  Gospel,  and  will  take  an  honorable  place  in  the  series  of  which  it  forms 
a  part."  —  Prof.  D.  D.  Salmond,  in  the  Critical  Review. 

"  We  are  pleased  with  the  thoroughness  and  scientific  accuracy  of  the  inter- 
pretations. ...  It  seems  to  us  that  the  prevailing  characteristic  of  the  book 
is  common  sense,  fortified  by  learning  and  piety."  —  T/ie  Herald  and  Presbyter. 

"  An  important  work,  which  no  student  of  the  Word  of  God  can  safely 
yieglect." —  The  Church  Standard. 

"The  author  has  both  the  scholar's  knowledge  and  the  scholar's  spirit 
necessary  for  the  preparation  of  such  a  commentary.  .  .  .  We  know  of 
nothing  on  the  Third  Gospel  which  more  thoroughly  meets  the  wants  of  the 
Biblical  scholar."  —  The  Outlook. 

"  The  author  is  not  only  a  profound  scholar,  but  a  chastened  and  reverent 
Christian,  who  undertakes  to  interpret  a  Gospel  of  Christ,  so  as  to  show 
clhrist  in  his  grandeur  and  loveliness  of  character."  —  The  Southern  Church- 
man. 

"  It  is  a  valuable  and  welcome  addition  to  our  somewhat  scanty  stock  of 
first-class  commentaries  on  the  Third  Gospel.  By  its  scholarly  thoroughness 
it  well  sustains  the  reputation  which  the  International  Series  has  already 
won."  —  Prof.  J.  H.  Thayer,  of  Harvard  University. 

This  volume  having  been  so  recently  published,  further  notices  are  not  y el 
dvailabte. 


tU  3nfernationaf  Cxiiiaxt  Commentary. 

** Richly  helpful  to  scholars  and  f/ti'nisters."— The  Presbyterian  Banner. 

The  Books  of  Samuel 

BY 

REV.  HENRY  PRESERVED  SMITH,  D.D., 

Professor  of  Biblical  History  ami  Interprctiitio)i  in  Amherst  College. 


Crown  8vo,  Net  $3.00. 


**  Professor  Smith's  Commentary  will  for  some  time  be  the  standard 
work  on  Samuel,  and  we  heartily  congratulate  him  on  scholarly  work  s^ 
faithfully  accomplished." — The  Atheudum. 

"It  is  both  critical  and  excgetical,  and  deals  with  original  Hebrew  and 
Greek.  It  shows  painstaking  diligence  and  considerable  research." — The 
Presbyterian. 

*'  The  style  is  clear  and  forcible  and  sustains  the  well-won  reputation  of 
the  distinguished  author  for  scholarship  and  candor.  All  thoughtful  stu- 
dents of  the  Scriptures  will  find  the  work  helpful,  not  only  on  account  of  its 
specific  treatment  of  the  Books  of  Samuel,  on  which  it  is  based,  but  because 
of  the  light  it  throws  on  and  the  aid  it  gives  in  the  general  interpretation  of 
the  Scriptures  as  modified  by  present-day  criticism." — The  Philadelphia 
Press. 

"  The  literary  quality  of  the  book  deserves  mention.  We  do  not  usually 
go  to  commentaries  for  models  of  English  style.  But  this  book  has  a  dis- 
tinct, though  unobtrusive,  literary  flavor.  It  is  delightful  reading.  The 
translation  is  always  felicitous,  and  often  renders  further  comment  need- 
less."—  The  Evayjgelist. 

•'The  treatment  is  critical,  and  at  the  same  time  expository.  Conserva- 
tive students  may  find  much  in  this  volume  with  which  they  cannot  agree, 
but  no  one  wishing  to  know  the  most  recent  conclusions  concerning  this 
part  of  sacred  history  can  afford  to  be  without  it." — Philadelphia  Presby- 
terian Journal. 

"The  author  exhibits  precisely  that  scholarly  attitude  which  will  com- 
mend his  work  to  the  widest  audience." — The  Churchman. 

"The  commentary  is  the  most  complete  and  minute  hitherto  published 
by  an  English-speaking  scholar." — Literature. 

"The  volumes  of  Driver  and  Moore  set  a  high  standard  for  the  Old 
Testament  writers;  but  I  think  Professor  Smith's  work  has  reached  the 
same  high  level.  It  is  scholarly  and  critical,  and  yet  it  is  written  in  a  spirit 
of  reverent  devotion,  a  worthy  treatment  of  the  sacred  text." — Frof.  L.  W. 
Batten,  of  P.  E.  Divinity  School,  Philadelphia. 


tf}C  3nternctftonaf  Cxiticai  Commenfarg. 


**  A  decided  advance  on  all  other  commentaries** — The  OUTLOOK. 


PROVERBS 


By  the  Rev.  CRAWFORD    H.  TOY,  D.D.,   LL.D. 

Professor  of  Hebrew  in  Harvard  University. 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00. 


*•  In  careful  scholarship  this  volume  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired.  Its  in- 
terpretation is  free  from  theological  prejudice.  It  will  be  indispensable  to 
the  careful  student,  whether  lay  or  clerical.*' — The  Outlook. 

"  Professor  Toy's  *  Commentary '  will  for  many  years  to  come  remain  a 
handbook  for  both  teachers  and  learners,  and  its  details  will  be  studied  with 
critical  care  and  general  appreciation." — The  Athe)iicuin, 

"The  commentary  itself  is  a  most  thorough  treatment  of  each  verse  in. 
detail,  in  which  the  light  of  the  fullest  scholarship  is  thrown  upon  the  mean- 
ing. The  learning  displayed  throughout  the  work  is  enormous.  Here  is  a 
commentary  at  last  that  does  not  skip  the  hard  places,  but  grapples  with 
every  problem  and  point,  and  says  the  best  that  can  be  said." — Presbyterian 
Banner 

"  Professor  Toy's  commentary  on  Proverbs  maintains  the  highest  standard 
of  the  International  Critical  Commentaries.  We  can  give  no  higher  praise. 
Proverbs  presents  comparatively  few  problems  in  criticism,  but  offers  large 
opportunities  to  the  expositor  and  exegete.  Professor  Toy's  work  is 
thorough  and  complete." — The  Congregationalist. 

•'This  addition  to  'The  International  Critical  Commentary'  has  the  same 
characteristics  of  thoroughness  and  painstaking  scholarship  as  the  preceding 
issues  of  the  series.  In  the  critical  treatment  of  the  text,  in  noting  the 
various  readings  and  the  force  of  the  words  in  the  original  Hebrew,  it  leaves 
nothing  to  be  desired." — The  Christian  Jntelligeneer. 

"A  first-class,  up-to-date,  critical  and  exegetical  commentary  on  the  Book 
cf  Proverbs  in  the  English  language  was  one  (^f  the  crying  needs  of  Biblical 
scholarship.  Accordingly,  we  may  not  be  yielding  to  the  latest  addition  to 
the  International  Critical  Series  the  tribute  it  deserves,  when  we  say  that  it 
at  once  takes  the  first  place  in  its  class  That  place  it  undoubtedly  deserves, 
however,  and  would  have  secured  even  against  much  more  formidable  com- 
petitors than  it  happens  to  have.  It  is  altogether  a  well-arranged,  lucid 
exposition  of  this  unique  book  in  the  Bible,  based  on  a  careful  study  of  the 
text  and  the  linguistic  and  historical  background  of  every  part  of  it." — The 
Interior. 

"While  this  commentary  is  called  'critical'  and  is  such,  it  is  not  one  in 
which  the  apparatus  is  spread  out  in  detail ;  it  is  one  which  any  intelli- 
gent English  reader  can  readily  use  and  thoroughly  understand  " — The 
Evangelist, 


^e  3tttetMtional  Criticaf  Commenfarg. 


*'/  hmie  already  expressed  my  conviction  that  the  Inter, 
national  C"itical  Commentary  is  the  best  critical  commentary. 
CM  the  whole  Bible,  in  existence." — Dr.  Lyivian  Abuott. 

Philippians  and  Philemon 

BY 

REV.  MARVIN  R.  VINCENT,  D.D. 

Ptv/tssor  oj   Biblical  Literature  in   Union   Theological  Seminary,  New   York* 


Crown  8vo,  Net  $2.00. 


"It  is,  in  short,  in  every  way  worthy  of  the  series." — The  Scotsman. 

"  Professor  Vincent's  Commentary  on  PhiHppians  and  Philemon  appears 
to  me  not  less  admirable  for  its  literary  merit  than  for  its  scholarship  and  its 
clear  and  discriminating  discussions  of  the  contents  of  these  Epistles-" — Dr. 
George  P.  Fisher. 

"The  book  contains  many  examples  of  independent  and  judicial  weigh- 
ing of  evidence.  We  have  been  delighted  with  the  portion  devoted  to  Phile- 
mon. Unlike  most  commentaries,  this  may  wisely  be  read  as  a  whole." — 
The  Congregationalist 

"Of  the  merits  of  the  work  it  is  enough  to  say  that  it  is  worthy  of  its 
place  in  the  noble  undertaking  to  which  it  belongs.  It  is  fuP  of  just  such 
information  as  the  Bible  -rudent,  lay  or  clerical,  needs;  and  while  giving  an 
abundance  of  the  truths  of  erudition  lo  aid  the  critical  student  of  the  text,  it 
abounds  also  in  that  more  popular  information  which  enables  the  attentive 
reader  almost  to  put  himselt  in  St.  Paul's  place,  to  see  with  the  eyes  and  feel 
with  the  heart  of  the  Apostle  to  the  Gentiles." — Boston  Advertiser. 

"If  it  is  possible  in  these  days  to  produce  a  commentary  which  will  be 
free  from  polemical  and  ecclesiastical  bias,  the  feat  will  be  accomplished  in 
the  International  Oitical  Commentary.  .  .  .  It  is  evident  that  the  writer 
has  given  an  immense  amount  of  scholarly  research  and  original  thought  to 
the  subject.  .  .  .  The  author's  introduction  to  the  Epistle  to  Philemon 
is  an  admirable  piece  of  literature,  calculated  to  arouse  in  the  student's  mind 
an  intense  interest  in  the  circumstances  which  produced  this  short  letter  from 
the  inspired  Apostle." — Commercial  Advertiser. 

"  His  discussion  of  Philemon  is  marked  by  sympathy  and  appreciation, 
and  his  full  discussion  of  the  relations  of  Pauline  Christianity  to  slavery  are 
interesting,  both  historically  and  sociologically." — The  Dial. 

"Throughout  the  work  scholarly  research  is  evident.  It  commends  itself 
by  its  clear  elucidation,  its  keen  exegesis  which  marks  the  word  study  on 
every  page,  its  compactness  of  statement  and  its  simplicity  of  arrangement.'* 
— Luthera7i  World. 

"  The  scholarship  of  the  author  seems  to  be  fully  equal  to  his  i  dertakmg, 
and  he  has  given  to  us  a  fine  piece  of  work.  One  cannot  but  se  that  if  the 
entire  series  shall  l)e  executed  upon  a  par  with  this  portion,  thel  lau  be  lit- 
tle left  to  be  desired." — Philadelphia  Presbyterian  Journal. 


€U  3^^^^^<^<tonaf  Criticdf  Commenfarg. 


"  T/ie  best  commentary  and  the  one   most   useful  to  the  Bible 
student  is  The  International  Critical." 

— The  Reformed  Church  Review. 


ST.  PETER  AND  ST.  JUDE 

By  the  Rev.  CHARLES   BIGQ,  D.D. 

Regius  Professor  of  Ecclesiastical  History  in  the  University  of  Oxford 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $2.50. 

-'His  commentary  is  very  satisfactory  indeed.  His  notes  are  particularly 
valuable.  We  know  of  no  work  on  these  Epistles  which  is  so  full  and  satis- 
factory."—  The  Living  CJturch. 

'*  It  shows  an  immense  amount  of  research  and  acquaintanceship  with  the 
views  of  the  critical  school." — Herald  and  Presbyter. 

"This  volume  well  sustains  the  reputation  achieved  by  its  predecessors. 
The  notes  to  the  text,  as  well  as  the  introductions,  are  marked  by  erudition 
at  once  affluent  and  discriminating." — TJie  Outlook. 

"Canon  Bigg's  work  is  pre-eminently  characterized  by  judicial  open- 
mindedness  and  sympathetic  insight  into  historical  conditions.  His  realistic 
interpretation  of  the  relations  of  the  apostles  and  the  circumstances  of  the 
early  church  renders  the  volume  invaluable  to  students  of  these  themes. 
The  exegetical  work  in  the  volume  rests  on  the  broad  basis  of  careful  lin- 
guistic study,  acquaintance  with  apocalyptic  literature  and  the  Avritings  of 
the  Fathers,  a  sane  judgment,  and  good  sense." — American  Journal  of 
Theology. 


NUMBERS 


By  the  Rev.  G.  BUCHANAN  GRAY,  D.D. 

Professor  of  Hebrew,  Mansfield  College,  Oxford. 


Crown  8vo.     Net,  $3.00. 

"Most  Bible  readers  have  the  impression  that  'Numbers'  is  a  dull 
book  only  relieved  by  the  brilliancy  of  the  Balaam  chapters  and  some 
snatches  of  old  Hebrew  songs,  but,  as  Prof.  Gray  shows  with  admi- 
rable skill  and  insight,  its  historical  and  religious  value  is  not  that 
which  lies  on  the  surface.  Prof.  Gray's  Commentary  is  distinguished 
by  fine  scholarship  and  sanity  of  judgment ;  it  is  impossible  to 
commend  it  too  warmly." — Saturday  Review  {London). 


'ght  International  ©vitical  ©ommentarjj, 

^'  For  the  student  this  7icw  comTnentary  promises  to  l>e  initispen- 
sable :'  —  The  Methodist  Recorder. 


ROMANS. 

By  the  Rev.  WILLIAM   SANDAY,  D.D.,  LL.D., 

Lidy  Margaret  Professor  of  Divinity,  and  Canon  of  Christ  Church.  Oxtord, 


Rev.  A.  C.  HEADLAM,  M.A.,  D.D., 

Principal  of  King's  College,  London. 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $3.00. 


"  From  my  knowledge  of  Dr.  Sanday,  and  from  a  brief  examination  of  the 
book,  I  am  led  to  believe  that  it  is  our  best  critical  handbook  to  the  Epistle. 
It  combines  great  learning  with  practical  and  suggestive  interpretation."  — 
Professor  George  B.  Stevens,  of  Yale  University. 

"  Professor  Sanday  is  excellent  in  scholarship,  and  of  unsurpassed  candor. 
The  introduction  and  detached  notes  are  highly  interesting  and  instructive. 
This  commentary  cannot  fail  to  render  the  most  valuable  assistance  to  all 
earnest  students.  The  volume  augurs  well  for  the  series  of  which  it  is  a  mem- 
ber."—  Professor  George  P.  Fisher,  of  Yale  University. 

"The  scholarship  and  spirit  of  Dr.  Sanday  give  assurance  of  an  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  which  will  be  both  scholarly  and  spiritual." 
—  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott. 

'■  The  work  of  the  authors  has  been  carefully  done,  and  will  prove  an 
acceptable  addition  to  the  literature  of  the  great  Epistle.  The  exegesis  is 
acute  and  learned  .  .  .  The  authors  show  much  familiarity  with  the  work 
of  their  predecessors,  and  write  with  calmness  and  lucidity."  —  Neiv  York 
Observer. 

"  We  are  confident  that  this  commentary  will  find  a  place  in  every  thought- 
ful minister's  library.  One  may  not  be  able  to  agree  with  the  authors  at  some 
points,  —  and  this  is  true  of  all  commentaries,  —  but  they  have  given  us  a  work 
which  cannot  but  prove  valuable  to  the  critical  study  of  Paul's  masterly  epis- 
tle." —  Zion's  Advocate. 

"  We  do  not  hesitate  to  commend  this  as  the  best  commentary  on  Romans 
yet  written  in  English.  It  will  do  much  to  popularize  this  admirable  and 
much  needed  series,  by  showing  that  it  is  possible  to  be  critical  and  scholarly 
and  at  the  same  time  devout  and  spiritual,  and  intelligible  to  plain  Bible 
readers."  —  T/ie  Church  Standard. 

"A  commentary  with  a  very  distinct  character  and  purpose  of  its  own, 
which  brings  to  students  and  ministers  an  aid  which  they  cannot  obtain  else- 
where. .  .  .  There  is  probably  no  other  commentary  in  which  criticism  has 
been  employed  so  successfully  and  impartially  to  bring  out  the  author's 
thought."  —  N.  Y.  Independent. 

"  We  have  nothing  but  heartiest  praise  for  the  weightier  matters  of  the 
commentary.  It  is  not  only  critical,  but  exegetical,  expository,  doctrinal, 
practical,  and  eminently  spiritual.  The  positive  conclusions  of  the  books  are 
very  numerous  and  are  stoutly,  gloriously  evangelical.  .  .  .  The  commentary 
does  not  fail  to  speak  with  the  utmost  levereace  of  the  whole  word  of  God." 
TAe  Congrtgationaliil 


^Xxc  lutertxational  ©rittcal  ©ommjetttatrg* 


*'7'Ais  admirable  series.'" — The  London  Academy. 


EPHESIANS  AND  COLOSSIANS. 

By  the  Rev.  T.  K.  ABBOTT,  B.D.,  D.  Litt. 

Formerly  Professor  of  Biblical  Greek,  now  of  Hebrew,  Trinity  College, 

Dublin. 


Crown  8vo.    Net,  $2.50. 


**  The  latest  volume  of  this  admirable  series  is  informed  with  the  very 
best  spirit  in  which  such  work  can  be  carried  out — a  spirit  of  absolute 
fidelity  to  the  demonstrable  truths  of  critical  science.  .  .  .  This  summary 
of  the  results  of  modern  criticism  applied  to  these  two  Pauline  letters  is, 
for  the  use  of  scholarly  students,  not  likely  to  be  superseded." — The  Lon- 
don Academy. 

"  An  able  and  independent  piece  of  exegesis,  and  one  that  none  of  us  can 
afford  to  be  without.  It  is  the  work  of  a  man  who  has  made  himself  mas- 
ter of  his  theme.  His  linguistic  ability  is  manifest.  His  style  is  usually 
clear.  His  exegetical  perceptions  are  keen,  and  we  are  especially  grateful 
for  his  strong  defence  of  the  integrity  and  apostolicity  of  these  two  great 
monuments  of  Pauline  teaching." — 77ie  Expos' tor. 

"It  displays  every  mark  of  conscientious  judgment,  wide  reading,  and 
grammatical  insight." — Literature. 

"  In  discrimination,  learning,  and  candor,  it  is  the  peer  of  the  other  vol- 
umes of  the  series.  The  elaborate  introductions  are  of  special  value." — 
Professor  George  B.  Stevens,  of  Yale  University. 

"It  is  rich  in  philological  material,  clearly  arranged,  and  judiciously 
handled.  The  studies  of  words  are  uncommonly  good.  ...  In  the 
balancing  of  opinions,  in  the  distinguishing  between  fine  shades  of  mean- 
ing, it  is  both  acute  and  sound." — TAe  Church. 

"  The  exegesis  based  so  solidly  on  the  rock  foundation  of  philology  is 
argumentatively  and  convincingly  strong.  A  spiritual  and  evangelical  tenor 
pervades  the  interpretation  from  first  to  last.  .  .  .  These  elements,  to- 
gether with  the  author's  full-orbed  vision  of  the  truth,  with  his  discrimina- 
tive judgment  and  his  felicity  of  expression,  make  this  the  peer  of  any  com- 
mentary on  these  important  letters." — The  Standard. 

"  An  exceedingly  careful  and  painstaking  piece  of  work.  The  introduc- 
tory discussions  of  questions  bearing  on  the  authenticity  and  integrity  (of 
the  epistles)  are  clear  and  candid,  and  the  exposition  of  the  text  displays  a 
fine  scholarship  and  insight." — N'orth^vestern  Christian  Advocate. 

"The  book  is  from  first  to  last  exegetical  and  critical.  Every  phrase  in 
the  two  Epistles  is  searched  as  with  lighted  candles.  The  authorities  for 
variant  readings  are  canvassed  but  weighed,  rather  than  counted.  The  mul- 
tiform ancient  and  modern  interpretations  are  investigated  with  the  ex- 
haustiveness  of  a  German  lecture-room,  and  the  judicial  spirit  of  an  English 
court-room.      Special  discussions  are  numerous  and  thorough." — The  Con* 

^  165 


Date  Due 


r 


'^■^^3f-^-^\'St\^' 


^•^--^.^'^ZL^' 


